Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3.1 vs Qwen1.5-14B
DeepSeek-V3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where DeepSeek-V3.1 leads 60.3 to 33.6.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.8 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2025-08-21 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 164K | — |
| Max output | 8K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.95 | — |
| Results tracked | 27 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-V3.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1: 40.3 (#144), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1417 | 1138 |
| WeirdML | 38.4% | — |
Reasoning DeepSeek-V3.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.9 (#110), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1417 | 1113 |
| SimpleBench | 40% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 53.2% | — |
| DTBench | 82.7% | — |
| LMCA | 24.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 139.92 | — |
| ForecastBench | 58 | — |
Math DeepSeek-V3.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1: 38.9 (#122), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1420 | 1125 |
Knowledge DeepSeek-V3.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.7 (#90), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1405 | 1094 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.5% | — |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |
Multilingual DeepSeek-V3.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.6 (#106), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1400 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1469 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | 1116 |
| LMArena German | 1411 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1405 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1431 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1337 | — |
Instruction Following DeepSeek-V3.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1: 73.9 (#110), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1102 |
Long Context DeepSeek-V3.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#232), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1113 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 52.8% | — |
Writing & Preference DeepSeek-V3.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.3 (#98), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1420 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1110 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1436 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3.1 better than Qwen1.5-14B?
DeepSeek-V3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is DeepSeek-V3.1 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.3 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1 and Qwen1.5-14B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.