Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3 14B
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3 14B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.2 to 18.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 64.5% for Claude Opus 5 and 18.2% for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 35.5 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 56.4% | 31.6% |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 29.1% | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 4% |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 64% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 138.23 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 66.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 63.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | — |
| LMArena French | 1519 | — |
| LMArena German | 1524 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Qwen3 14B?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3 14B share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.