Model Comparison
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
vs. Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · DeepSeek, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
De V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) 13 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
100.0 value score
53.9 reasoning / $0.18/1M
Lowest Price
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
$0.14/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 (Reasoning)
56.7 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
38.7 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) is 2.0x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 (Reasoning) generates about 1.3x as many tokens per second as V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 (Reasoning) leads V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) by 2.8 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) leads Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 (Reasoning) by 24.1 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick De V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) | Al Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.14/1M | $0.28/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.28/1M | $1.85/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.18/1M | $0.67/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 24, 2026 | Jul 30, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 111.8 tok/s | 143.9 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1054ms | 1000ms |
| Latency | 51244ms | 14896ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 27.4 |
| Reasoning Score | 53.9 | 56.7 |
| Intelligence | 40.3 | 15.8 |
| Coding | 38.7 | 14.6 |
| Math | — | 56.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 89.4% | 70.7% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 80.5% |
| HLE | 32.1% | 9.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 70.7% |
| MATH 500 | — | 97.6% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 56.3% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 90.7% |
| SciCode | 44.9% | 33.3% |
| LCR | 63.0% | 59.0% |
| IFBench | 79.2% | 50.7% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 95.0% | 28.1% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 35.6% | 5.3% |
Key Takeaways
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) offers the best value at $0.14/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 56.7 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) reaches a 38.7 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
