Gemini 3 Flash vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

Detailed comparison between Gemini 3 Flash and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking for RAG applications. See which LLM best meets your accuracy, performance, and cost needs.

Model Comparison

Gemini 3 Flash takes the lead.

Both Gemini 3 Flash and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking are powerful language models designed for RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why Gemini 3 Flash:

  • Gemini 3 Flash has 264 higher ELO rating
  • Gemini 3 Flash is 4.5s faster on average
  • Gemini 3 Flash has a 30.9% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Gemini 3 Flash

1607

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

1343

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Gemini 3 Flash

61.0%

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

30.1%

Quality Score

Overall quality metric

Gemini 3 Flash

4.95

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

4.90

Average Latency

Response time

Gemini 3 Flash

7802ms

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

12312ms

Visual Performance Analysis

Performance

ELO Rating Comparison

Win/Loss/Tie Breakdown

Quality Across Datasets (Overall Score)

Latency Distribution (ms)

Breakdown

How the models stack up

MetricGemini 3 FlashQwen3 30B A3B ThinkingDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1607
1343
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
61.0%
30.1%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Quality Score
4.95
4.90
Average quality across all RAG metrics
Pricing & Context
Input Price per 1M
$0.50
$0.05
Cost per million input tokens
Output Price per 1M
$3.00
$0.34
Cost per million output tokens
Context Window
1049K
33K
Maximum context window size
Release Date
2025-12-17
2025-08-28
Model release date
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
7.8s
12.3s
Average response time across all datasets

Dataset Performance

By benchmark

Comprehensive comparison of RAG quality metrics (correctness, faithfulness, grounding, relevance, completeness) and latency for each benchmark dataset.

MSMARCO

MetricGemini 3 FlashQwen3 30B A3B ThinkingDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.83
4.93
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.87
4.90
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.87
4.90
Citations and context usage
Relevance
5.00
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.90
4.80
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.89
4.91
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
6852ms
12522ms
Average response time
Min3389ms1541msFastest response time
Max9837ms49799msSlowest response time

PG

MetricGemini 3 FlashQwen3 30B A3B ThinkingDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
5.00
4.90
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
5.00
4.87
Adherence to source material
Grounding
5.00
4.83
Citations and context usage
Relevance
5.00
4.93
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
5.00
4.70
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
5.00
4.85
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
9444ms
16030ms
Average response time
Min5346ms3483msFastest response time
Max12549ms44237msSlowest response time

SciFact

MetricGemini 3 FlashQwen3 30B A3B ThinkingDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
5.00
4.97
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
5.00
4.97
Adherence to source material
Grounding
5.00
4.93
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.97
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.83
4.83
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.96
4.94
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
7110ms
8384ms
Average response time
Min3784ms2185msFastest response time
Max18224ms19414msSlowest response time

Explore More

Compare more LLMs

See how all LLMs stack up for RAG applications. Compare GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, and more. View comprehensive benchmarks and find the perfect LLM for your needs.