Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3 14B
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 5.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 14B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 62.7 to 18.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 50% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 4% for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $9 for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 54.1 | 35.0 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Max output | 66K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.1 (#46), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 53.1% | 31.6% |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | — |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 14B leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.8 (#107), Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 27.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
| GBAEval | 6.7% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,396 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.7 (#16), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 13.1% | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | 4% |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 64% |
| LMCA | 47.1% | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.55 | 138.23 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.5 (#30), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | 66.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1502 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#10), Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | 63.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1493 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#13), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1311 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.1 (#12), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1475 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1525 | — |
| LMArena French | 1490 | — |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1481 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1453 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1491 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1478 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.2 (#29), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1466 | — |
Long Context Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.3 (#39), Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1481 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#46), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1481 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1467 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1482 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than Qwen3 14B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 5.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.1 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and Qwen3 14B share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.