Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
Compare Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507, both from Qwen, context windows of 131K vs 131K, tested across 39 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 or Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507?
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 are both competitive models. Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.11/M input tokens vs $0.2/M for Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507. Context windows: 131K vs 131K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is made by qwen while Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 is from qwen. Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 has a 131K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507's 131K. On pricing, Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.11/M input tokens vs $0.2/M for Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Runner-up
No community votes yet. On paper, Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 has the edge — bigger model tier.
Too close to call
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
93%
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 uses 1.9x more emoji
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
56%Vocabulary55%
14wSentence Length18w
0.37Hedging0.52
5.7Bold6.7
4.0Lists4.3
0.54Emoji1.04
0.70Headings0.92
0.14Transitions0.11
Based on 22 + 22 text responses
vsAsk them anything yourself
279 AI models invented the same fake scientist.
We read every word. 250 models. 2.14 million words. This is what we found.
Free preview13 of 58 slides
FAQ