Model comparison
DeepSeek-R1 vs Qwen3 14B
DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-R1 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3 14B in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where DeepSeek-R1 leads 46.3 to 37.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 69.4% for DeepSeek-R1 and 49.1% for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $2.15 for DeepSeek-R1.
- DeepSeek-R1 accepts more context: 164K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-R1 | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.3 | 35.5 |
| Released | 2025-01-20 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 164K | 131K |
| Max output | 64K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.15 | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 46.3 (#68), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 35.7% | 31.6% |
| Aider Polyglot | 71.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 66.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 804.12 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.7 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 30.7 (#75), Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | — |
| BALROG | 34.9% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 53.8% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
DeepSeek-R1: 18.6 (#278), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 69.4% | 49.1% |
| CritPt | 1.1% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.29 | 138.23 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 40.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 21.2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 83.2% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1416 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.8% | — |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | — |
Math DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 43.8 (#79), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | 66.4% |
| Omni-MATH | 42.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.7% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1400 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 96.6% | — |
Knowledge DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 44.5 (#87), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.3% | 5.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | 79.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 66.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1394 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 52.4 (#85), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1442 | — |
| LMArena French | 1417 | — |
| LMArena German | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1411 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 72.0 (#143), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.5% | — |
| IFEval | 78.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1382 | — |
Long Context DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 75% | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1391 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 61.4 (#88), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1405 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1500 | — |
| WildBench | 82.8% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1405 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 48.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-R1 better than Qwen3 14B?
DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-R1 or Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-R1 lists at $0.50 and $2.15.
Is DeepSeek-R1 or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
DeepSeek-R1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek-R1 does, with 164K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3 14B share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-R1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.