Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
Compare Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15, both from Qwen, context windows of 262K vs 1.0M, tested across 53 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15?
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 are both competitive models. Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 costs $0.071/M input tokens vs $0.4/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15. Context windows: 262K vs 1000K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is made by qwen while Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 is from qwen. Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 has a 262K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15's 1000K. On pricing, Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 costs $0.071/M input tokens vs $0.4/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507Runner-up
No community votes yet. On paper, Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 has the edge — bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is 8.4x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Slight edge
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
100%
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 uses 6.8x more emoji
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
54%Vocabulary54%
14wSentence Length18w
0.12Hedging0.51
7.5Bold5.3
4.2Lists2.9
0.68Emoji0.10
0.93Headings0.75
0.12Transitions0.09
Based on 16 + 23 text responses
vsAsk them anything yourself
FAQ