Qwen3-Coder 30B: Local Coding Agent Automation Benchmarks

Qwen3-Coder 30B is a large language model optimized for software development tasks, specifically designed to automate repetitive coding workflows through agent-based reasoning. It operates by parsing repository contexts, generating code patches, and executing iterative self-correction loops to achieve functional solutions without human intervention. The model’s architecture emphasizes high contextual window utilization and precise instruction following, making it a candidate for local deployment in privacy-sensitive environments. Unlike cloud-based alternatives, local inference eliminates latency dependencies on external servers, though it requires significant hardware resources, particularly VRAM, to maintain throughput during complex multi-step generation. The core value proposition lies in its ability to handle structured programming languages and debug logic errors autonomously, reducing the manual burden on developers.

What did Hax measure on its own stack?#

Reference numbers Hax measured directly on its own infrastructure (measured, sourced).

Hax /data matched measured block (measured, 2026-07-03) · columns: Dataset item, Measured value, Date, Source · 출처 Hax hax.moche.ai/en/p/1141?ref=ai_answer

Hax /data matched measured block (measured, 2026-07-03) · columns: Dataset item, Measured value, Date, Source · 출처 Hax hax.moche.ai/en/p/1141?ref=ai_answer

Dataset item | Measured value | Date | Source
발행 성공률 | 100.0 % | 2026-07-03 | Hax 운영 실측(telemetry/funnel)
생성 큐 성공률(누적 143건) | 77.6 % | 2026-06-30 | Hax ComfyUI 풀 운영 통계
qwen-image(50스텝, 1024px, 콜드) 생성 시간 | 73 s | 2026-06-30 | Hax ComfyUI 풀 실측

측정 방법론 · Hax ComfyUI 풀 실측 +1 more

표본

2 measured metrics (Hax /data curated)

측정 환경

RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell ×4 풀; ComfyUI 0.24.0

수집일

2026-06-30

방법

1장 콜드 스타트; 누적 143건 중 성공 111(취소 21; 실패 11)

How can you reproduce these numbers?#

Follow the source column above and our open dataset at /data.

Hax Evaluation Environment / Local LLM Benchmarks 2024 · columns: Task, Metric Type, Qwen3-Coder 30B

Task | Metric Type | Qwen3-Coder 30B
HumanEval Pass@1 | 추정 (Estimated) | 88.5%
MBPP Base | 추정 (Estimated) | 91.2%
Local Compile Success | 측정대기 (Not Measured) | Pending

What determines the reliability of a local coding agent? Success rate metrics, such as Pass@1 on HumanEval, provide a baseline for correctness but fail to capture the dynamic nature of real-world development. In practical scenarios, a model may generate syntactically correct but logically flawed code. Therefore, the retry mechanism becomes critical. An effective agent should analyze compiler errors or runtime exceptions, generate hypotheses for failure, and attempt revised solutions. This iterative process, often measured by Pass@k (e.g., Pass@10), offers a more realistic assessment of automation potential. For instance, a model with a 60% Pass@1 might achieve 90% Pass@5, indicating strong self-correction capabilities. However, each retry incurs computational cost and time, which must be balanced against the complexity of the task. The trade-off between initial accuracy and iterative refinement defines the operational efficiency of the agent.

Why do compile pass rates vary across different local setups? Hardware constraints significantly impact performance. A 30B parameter model typically requires 24GB+ VRAM for full precision inference, or aggressive quantization (e.g., 4-bit) for accessibility on consumer GPUs. Quantization can degrade reasoning precision, leading to lower success rates in complex logical tasks. Furthermore, the integration of the model with execution environments (such as Docker containers or sandboxed shells) affects reliability. If the agent cannot reliably interpret error messages from the environment, its retry logic fails. This creates a dependency on the quality of the tool-use interface, not just the model’s internal capabilities.

How does this model compare to larger alternatives? While models with 70B+ parameters generally offer superior reasoning, the 30B variant strikes a balance between speed and capability, making it viable for local agents where latency matters. However, users must verify claims through local testing, as benchmark numbers often exclude the overhead of tool integration. For detailed performance analysis, consult the official documentation.

Note: Benchmarks are estimates based on public reports. Local results may vary based on hardware and configuration.