Rival
Sign Up

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Compare Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B, both from Qwen, context windows of 262K vs 262K, tested across 53 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.

Which is better, Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B?

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are both competitive models. Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 costs $0.071/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. 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 397B A17B

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is made by qwen while Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is from qwen. Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 has a 262K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B's 262K. On pricing, Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 costs $0.071/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B.

Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507Runner-up

No community votes yet. On paper, Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B has the edge — bigger model tier, newer.

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is 13x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.

Too close to call
Writing DNA

Style Comparison

Similarity
100%

Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B uses 3.1x more hedging

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
54%Vocabulary54%
14wSentence Length14w
0.12Hedging0.39
7.5Bold6.9
4.2Lists4.2
0.68Emoji0.23
0.93Headings0.93
0.12Transitions0.17
Based on 16 + 23 text responses
vs

Ask them anything yourself

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
FAQ
Keep going
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logoGPT-5 logo
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs GPT-5New provider
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logoLlama 4 Maverick logo
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Llama 4 MaverickNew provider
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logoMiniMax M2.5 logo
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs MiniMax M2.5New provider