Noometry

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#40); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek

50.3

Rank #40 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

38.2

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads 52.8 to 37.1.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

DeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen2.5 14B Instruct
ProviderDeepSeekAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.338.2
Released2026-09-092024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output393K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$1.40
Results tracked253

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.8 (#29), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.1 (#187)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena WebDev1620—
SciCode51.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—39.8%
LMArena Coding1511—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.2%
ALE-Bench1,092—

Reasoning Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 46.2 (#39), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen2.5 14B Instruct
NYT Connections (extended)89.6%—
CritPt14.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1485—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA47%—
Surface Evolver Bench46.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.01—

Math Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 48.4 (#52), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen2.5 14B Instruct
ProofBench54%—
LMArena Math1493—

Knowledge Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 41.6 (#97), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Expert1505—
MMLU—79.9%

Multilingual Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.5 (#29), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1452—
LMArena Chinese1506—
LMArena French1448—
LMArena Russian1473—
LMArena Spanish1499—

Instruction Following Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.6 (#24), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1475—

Long Context Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#46), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1476—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.8 (#43), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Text1465—
LMArena Creative Writing1436—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1540—
LMArena Multi-Turn1460—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#40); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 14B Instruct lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.8 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 25 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper