Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 by Anthropic against Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 by Qwen, context windows of 200K vs 262K, tested across 53 shared challenges. Updated June 2026.
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507?
Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 are both competitive models. Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15/M input tokens vs $0.071/M for Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507. Context windows: 200K vs 262K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Claude Opus 4.1 is made by anthropic while Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is from qwen. Claude Opus 4.1 has a 200K token context window compared to Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507's 262K. On pricing, Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15/M input tokens vs $0.071/M for Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507.
Per 1M tokens
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is cheaper on both — 211× input, 263× output
No community votes yet. On paper, Claude Opus 4.1 has the edge — bigger model tier, major provider backing.
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is 263x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Style Comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 uses 6.3x more sentence length
