Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Claude Opus 5.5vsQwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Opus 5.5vsQwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is cheaper than Claude Opus 5.5 at $0.071/M vs $4/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 compared across 19 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Input price$4/M tokens$0.071/M tokens
Output price$20/M tokens$0.285/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens262K tokens
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Aug 2025
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 19 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Claude Opus 5.5300 words
Midnight Silk Noodles Creamy, tangy peanut noodles with a gentle kick, ready faster than takeout. Serves: 2 Prep time: 5 minutes Cook time: 10 minutes Total time: 15 minutes The 7 Ingredients 8 oz (225 g) spaghetti (or any long noodle) ¼ cup creamy peanut butter 3 tablespoons soy sauce 1 tablespoon honey (or sugar) 1…
Read the full answer
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507330 words
🌅 Sunset Flatbread with Tomato-Herb Drizzle Simple, golden, and bursting with sunset-colored flavor—ready in 30 minutes with just 7 pantry staples! Ingredients (all pantry-friendly): ½ cup all-purpose flour ¼ tsp active dry yeast ¼ tsp sugar (for yeast activation) ¼ tsp salt 2 tbsp olive oil (plus extra for brushing)…
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Claude Opus 5.52,280 words
Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor The most serious problems cluster in three areas: the sync model (client-clock LWW), cross-server propagation (per-server WebSockets with DB polling), and the CDN/auth layer, which can leak data between users. Issues are grouped by area below.
Read the full answer
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507983 words
Below is a comprehensive analysis of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in the described architecture, with specific, actionable solutions and their trade-offs. I’ve prioritized critical issues (e.g., data loss, security) first. Critical Failure Modes & Race Conditions 1.
Read the full answer

Michelin Star Recipe Design

Design an innovative recipe for a multi-component dish worthy of a Michelin 3-star restaurant. The recipe should feature an unusual…

Claude Opus 5.52,253 words
"Hive & Tide" Langoustine, Beeswax, White Chocolate & Oscietra Caviar, Hay-Baked Celeriac, Fermented Green Strawberry, Sea Buckthorn I. The Concept Most coastal menus celebrate the meeting of sea and land. This dish is about a stranger, quieter meeting: the meadow and the seabed, the bee and the langoustine.
Read the full answer
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 25071,165 words
"Tides of Transformation" An Unfolding Ocean Narrative in Five Acts Conceptual Narrative: Inspired by the alchemy of tidal cycles—where raw sea life transforms through pressure, time, and elemental forces—this dish embodies the slow fermentation of the ocean’s memory.
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Claude Opus 5.53,435 words
The Transistor in 1920: A Counterfactual Through 1980 First, a Reality Check on the Premise A transistor "invented" in 1920 would not have changed the world in 1920. The actual 1947 transistor rested on three foundations that did not exist yet: Quantum theory of solids.
Read the full answer
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 25071,118 words
Hypothetical Scenario: Transistor Invention in 1920 (Instead of 1947) *Assumption: A functional, albeit rudimentary, point-contact transistor is developed in 1920 using early germanium or silicon processing (limited by 1920s materials science).
Read the full answer

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Claude Opus 5.5900 words
HarborTech Services: 5-Year LBO Underwriting Conventions: $m. Interest is charged on beginning-of-year balances, which avoids circularity. Term Loan (TL) amortization is 1% of the original $480m, or $4.8m per year. Mezz PIK accrues to principal. All FCF after mandatory debt service sweeps to the TL.
Read the full answer
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507592 words
Underwriting Summary: HarborTech Services (HTS) LBO Base Case Assumptions: Entry EV: $12.0x FY2025 EBITDA = $1,440M Transaction Fees: 2.0% of EV = $28.8M Total Consideration: $1,468.8M Debt: 5.5x EBITDA = $660M (Term Loan: $480M, Mezzanine: $180M) Equity: $808.8M Exit: FY2030, 10.5x EBITDA, 1.0% exit fees, Mezzanine…
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Claude Opus 5.5936 words
The 3 Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch "Decodes neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy. Works with any language, any device." (Slide 3) Why it's weak: It far exceeds the published state of the art. The best results for thought-to-text come from invasive implants.
Read the full answer
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507772 words
Here are the 3 weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, ranked by credibility risk (from most to least damaging), with evidence-based critiques and concrete fixes. These flaws would immediately erode investor confidence given current tech realities and market dynamics: 1.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Opus 5.5 has the edge: newer, bigger context window, major provider backing.

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 costs 70x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Claude Opus 5.5
Input
$4.00
Output
$20.00
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Input
$0.07
56× cheaper
Output
$0.28
70× cheaper

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is cheaper on both: 56× input, 70× output.

Where to run it

5 hosts

Claude Opus 5.54 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Amazon Bedrock$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·99.8% upAzure AI Foundry$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% upAnthropic$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% upGoogle Vertex AI$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% up
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 25071 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$0.20 in·$2.40 out·82k·99.2% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 25 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Claude Opus 5.5 is developed by Anthropic while Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is developed by Qwen. Claude Opus 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 19 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 19 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4/M input tokens and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 costs $0.071/M input tokens. Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is $3.93/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Claude Opus 5.5 logoSolar Mini 4 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGLM 5.3 Prime logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoCommand A+ logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logoGPT-6 Luna logo
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs GPT-6 LunaLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Claude Opus 5.5 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6Same lab
Claude Opus 5.5 logoClaude Fable 5.1 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5.1Same lab
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGemini 2.5 Pro (I/O Edition) logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro (I/O Edition)New provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05New provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGemini 3 Flash Preview logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3 Flash PreviewSame size
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGemini 3 Pro Preview logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3 Pro PreviewNew provider

Model pages

Claude Opus 5.5 logo
Claude Opus 5.519 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logo
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 250759 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed