Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen: Qwen3.6 Flash
Compare Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.6 Flash, both from Qwen, context windows of 262K vs 1.0M, tested across 54 shared challenges.
Our Verdict
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Qwen: Qwen3.6 Flash
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 5.3x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
API pricing
Cost per 1M tokens
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Input
$0.07
3.5× cheaper
Output
$0.28
5.3× cheaper
Qwen: Qwen3.6 Flash
Input
$0.25
Output
$1.50
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is cheaper on both — 3.5× input, 5.3× output
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
53%
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 uses 2.9x more transitions
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Qwen: Qwen3.6 Flash
54%Vocabulary57%
14wSentence Length23w
0.12Hedging0.31
7.5Bold4.6
4.2Lists2.9
0.68Emoji1.37
0.93Headings0.68
0.12Transitions0.04
Based on 16 + 27 text responses
Research
What we learned reading every model
FAQ
