Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B
Compare Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B, both from Qwen, context windows of 262K vs 262K, tested across 53 shared challenges. Updated May 2026.
Which is better, Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B?
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B are both competitive models. Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 costs $0.071/M input tokens vs $0.4/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B. Context windows: 262K vs 262K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is made by qwen while Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B is from qwen. Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 has a 262K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B's 262K. On pricing, Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 costs $0.071/M input tokens vs $0.4/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B.
Per 1M tokens
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is cheaper on both — 5.6× input, 11× output
No community votes yet. On paper, these are closely matched - try both with your actual task to see which fits your workflow.
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is 11x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Style Comparison
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 uses 6.5x more emoji
