Model Comparison
QwQ 32B
vs. 30B (high)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba, Sarvam
Recommended Pick
Al QwQ 32B 7 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
30B (high)
100.0 value score
27.5 reasoning / $0.05/1M
Lowest Price
30B (high)
$0.03/1M input price
Best Reasoning
QwQ 32B
45.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
30B (high)
7.9 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
30B (high) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
30B (high) is 25.4x cheaper on input tokens than QwQ 32B.
Speed gap
30B (high) generates about 7.3x as many tokens per second as QwQ 32B.
Reasoning gap
QwQ 32B leads 30B (high) by 18.0 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
QwQ 32B wins 7 measurable categories, including TTFT, Reasoning, Intelligence, HLE.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
QwQ 32B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
30B (high)
Sarvam
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Al QwQ 32B | Sa 30B (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.66/1M | $0.03/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.00/1M | $0.11/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.74/1M | $0.05/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Sarvam |
| Release Date | Mar 5, 2025 | Mar 6, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 30.9 tok/s | 224.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | 437ms | 1173ms |
| Latency | 81062ms | 10099ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 10.4 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 45.6 | 27.5 |
| Intelligence | 19.7 | 12.3 |
| Coding | — | 7.9 |
| Math | 29.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 59.3% | 63.3% |
| MMLU Pro | 76.4% | — |
| HLE | 8.2% | 7.0% |
| LiveCodeBench | 63.1% | — |
| MATH 500 | 95.7% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 29.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 78.0% | — |
| SciCode | 35.8% | 19.2% |
| LCR | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 38.8% | 26.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 34.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 2.3% |
Key Takeaways
30B (high) offers the best value at $0.03/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
QwQ 32B has the strongest reasoning profile with a 45.6 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
30B (high) reaches a 7.9 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
QwQ 32B
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
30B (high)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
