Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking vs GPT-OSS 120B

Detailed comparison between Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking and GPT-OSS 120B for RAG applications. See which LLM best meets your accuracy, performance, and cost needs.

Model Comparison

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking takes the lead.

Both Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking and GPT-OSS 120B are powerful language models designed for RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking:

  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking has 15 higher ELO rating
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking delivers better overall quality (4.90 vs 4.85)
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking has a 13.0% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

1331

GPT-OSS 120B

1316

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

31.9%

GPT-OSS 120B

18.9%

Quality Score

Overall quality metric

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

4.90

GPT-OSS 120B

4.85

Average Latency

Response time

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking

12312ms

GPT-OSS 120B

11199ms

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 ThinkingGPT-OSS 120BDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1331
1316
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
31.9%
18.9%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Quality Score
4.90
4.85
Average quality across all RAG metrics
Pricing & Context
Input Price per 1M
$0.05
$0.04
Cost per million input tokens
Output Price per 1M
$0.34
$0.19
Cost per million output tokens
Context Window
33K
131K
Maximum context window size
Release Date
2025-08-28
2025-08-05
Model release date
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
12.3s
11.2s
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 ThinkingGPT-OSS 120BDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.90
4.93
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.90
4.90
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.90
4.90
Citations and context usage
Relevance
5.00
4.97
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.80
4.87
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.90
4.91
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
12522ms
5616ms
Average response time
Min1541ms1255msFastest response time
Max49799ms20330msSlowest response time

PG

MetricQwen3 30B A3B ThinkingGPT-OSS 120BDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.90
4.80
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.87
4.80
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.87
4.80
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.93
4.83
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.77
4.73
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.87
4.79
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
16030ms
19128ms
Average response time
Min3483ms1317msFastest response time
Max44237ms69491msSlowest response time

SciFact

MetricQwen3 30B A3B ThinkingGPT-OSS 120BDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.97
4.87
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.97
4.87
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.93
4.87
Citations and context usage
Relevance
5.00
4.80
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.83
4.70
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.94
4.82
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
8384ms
8854ms
Average response time
Min2185ms0msFastest response time
Max19414ms35709msSlowest 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.