Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Qwen-14B

Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.9

Rank #327 Confirmed

Qwen-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #275 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen-14B in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in instruction following, where GPT-4.1 nano leads 67.8 to 52.4.
  • Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index27.931.4
Released2025-04-142023-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3818

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen-14B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
LMArena Coding13061071
Aider Polyglot8.9%—
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML19%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning Qwen-14B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts12861027
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62113.03
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
CritPt0%—
DTBench52.5%—
LMCA5.5%—
BIG-Bench Hard—55%
LAMBADA—71.1%
PIQA—79.9%

Math Qwen-14B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
LMArena Math12741068
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%—
Omni-MATH36.7%—
MATH Level 570%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—
GSM8K—61.3%

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
GPQA Diamond48.9%—
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—
LMArena Expert1272—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—84.4%
BoolQ—86.2%
MMLU—66.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
LMArena Non-English12601041
LMArena Chinese12701077
LMArena German1288—
LMArena Japanese1198—
LMArena Russian1261—

Instruction Following GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
LMArena Instruction Following12671031
IFEval84.3%—

Long Context Qwen-14B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
LMArena Longer Query12831028
Fiction.LiveBench25%—

Writing & Preference GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen-14B
LMArena Text12851051
LMArena Creative Writing12601028
LMArena Multi-Turn12771022
EQ-Bench Creative Writing946—
WildBench81.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than Qwen-14B?

Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen-14B better for coding?

Qwen-14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.2 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and Qwen-14B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper