Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Compare Claude Opus 4 by Anthropic against Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 by Qwen, context windows of 200K vs 262K, tested across 53 shared challenges. Updated May 2026.
Which is better, Claude Opus 4 or Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507?
Claude Opus 4 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 are both competitive models. Claude Opus 4 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 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Claude Opus 4 is made by anthropic while Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is from qwen. Claude Opus 4 has a 200K token context window compared to Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507's 262K. On pricing, Claude Opus 4 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 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
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 uses 6.1x more emoji
