Model Comparison

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking vs QwQ-32B

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

2 benchmarks

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while QwQ-32B is better at 1 benchmark (IFEval).

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
Input tokens$0.20
Output tokens$0.99
Best providerNovita
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

1.5B diff

QwQ-32B has 1.5B more parameters than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking, making it 4.8% larger.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
31.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
32.5Bparameters
31.0B
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
32.5B
QwQ-32B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking specifies input context (131,072 tokens). Only Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking specifies output context (32,768 tokens).

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
Input131,072 tokens
Output32,768 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking supports multimodal inputs, whereas QwQ-32B does not.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Text
Images
Audio
Video

QwQ-32B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under Apache 2.0.

Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

QwQ-32B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22, while QwQ-32B was released on 2025-03-05.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 7 months newer than QwQ-32B.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

6 months ago

6mo newer
QwQ-32B

Mar 5, 2025

1.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

QwQ-32B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-11-28, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm QwQ-32B's training data extends to 2024-11-28, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking's cutoff date.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

QwQ-32B

Nov 2024

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Key Takeaways

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Larger context window (131,072 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher GPQA score (74.4% vs 65.2%)
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

QwQ-32B

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Higher IFEval score (83.9% vs 81.7%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B

FAQ

Common questions about Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking vs QwQ-32B

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and QwQ-32B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 95.0%, ScreenSpot: 94.7%, MMLU-Redux: 90.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 88.9%, MMLU: 87.6%. QwQ-32B scores MATH-500: 90.6%, IFEval: 83.9%, AIME 2024: 79.5%, LiveBench: 73.1%, BFCL: 66.4%.
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking supports 131K tokens and QwQ-32B supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include multimodal support (yes vs no). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.