Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking vs Gemini 3 Flash

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

Model Comparison

Gemini 3 Flash takes the lead.

Both Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking and Gemini 3 Flash 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

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

1343

Gemini 3 Flash

1607

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

30.1%

Gemini 3 Flash

61.0%

Quality Score

Overall quality metric

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

4.90

Gemini 3 Flash

4.95

Average Latency

Response time

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

12312ms

Gemini 3 Flash

7802ms

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

MetricQwen3 30B A3B ThinkingGemini 3 FlashDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1343
1607
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
30.1%
61.0%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Quality Score
4.90
4.95
Average quality across all RAG metrics
Pricing & Context
Input Price per 1M
$0.05
$0.50
Cost per million input tokens
Output Price per 1M
$0.34
$3.00
Cost per million output tokens
Context Window
33K
1049K
Maximum context window size
Release Date
2025-08-28
2025-12-17
Model release date
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
12.3s
7.8s
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

MetricQwen3 30B A3B ThinkingGemini 3 FlashDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.93
4.83
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.90
4.87
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.90
4.87
Citations and context usage
Relevance
5.00
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.80
4.90
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.91
4.89
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
12522ms
6852ms
Average response time
Min1541ms3389msFastest response time
Max49799ms9837msSlowest response time

PG

MetricQwen3 30B A3B ThinkingGemini 3 FlashDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.90
5.00
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.87
5.00
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.83
5.00
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.93
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.70
5.00
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.85
5.00
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
16030ms
9444ms
Average response time
Min3483ms5346msFastest response time
Max44237ms12549msSlowest response time

SciFact

MetricQwen3 30B A3B ThinkingGemini 3 FlashDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.97
5.00
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.97
5.00
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.93
5.00
Citations and context usage
Relevance
5.00
4.97
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.83
4.83
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.94
4.96
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
8384ms
7110ms
Average response time
Min2185ms3784msFastest response time
Max19414ms18224msSlowest 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.