Qwen3 30B A3B vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 30B A3B and Qwen3 32B are closely matched at 16.8 and 18.0 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3 32B is 1.2x cheaper per token.
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Qwen3 30B A3B and Qwen3 32B are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 16.8 and 18.0.
In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3 32B wins 6; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3 32B is roughly 1.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3 30B A3B also accepts a larger context window (128,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Qwen3 30B A3B
- you process long inputs — it offers a 128,000 token context window
Choose Qwen3 32B
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 6 of 6 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 1.2x cheaper per token
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
8 reported for Qwen3 30B A3B · 9 for Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 30B A3B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3 32B is better at 6 benchmarks (AIME 2024, AIME 2025, Arena Hard, BFCL, LiveBench, LiveCodeBench).
Qwen3 32B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Qwen3 30B A3B ($0.10/1M tokens) is 1.3x more expensive than Qwen3 32B ($0.08/1M tokens).
For output processing, Qwen3 30B A3B ($0.30/1M tokens) is 1.1x more expensive than Qwen3 32B ($0.28/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3 30B A3B is more expensive than Qwen3 32B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3 32B has 2.3B more parameters than Qwen3 30B A3B, making it 7.5% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3 30B A3B accepts 128,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3 32B's 40,960 tokens. Qwen3 30B A3B can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Qwen3 32B is limited to 40,960 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under Apache 2.0.
Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Both models were released on 2025-04-29.
They likely represent similar generations of model development.
Apr 29, 2025
1.5 years ago
Apr 29, 2025
1.5 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Qwen3 30B A3B is available from DeepInfra, Novita, Fireworks. Qwen3 32B is available from DeepInfra, Novita, Sambanova.
Qwen3 30B A3B
Qwen3 32B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Qwen3 30B A3B and Qwen3 32B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Qwen3 30B A3B vs Qwen3 32B.