Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B, both from Qwen, context windows of 131K vs 262K, tested across 40 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are both competitive models. Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 costs $0.2/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Context windows: 131K vs 262K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 is made by qwen while Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is from qwen. Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 has a 131K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B's 262K. On pricing, Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 costs $0.2/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Runner-up
No community votes yet. On paper, Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B has the edge — bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 is 4.5x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Slight edge
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
99%
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 uses 4.5x more emoji
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
55%Vocabulary54%
18wSentence Length14w
0.52Hedging0.39
6.7Bold6.9
4.3Lists4.2
1.04Emoji0.23
0.92Headings0.93
0.11Transitions0.17
Based on 22 + 23 text responses
vsAsk them anything yourself
FAQ