Model comparison

gpt-oss-20b vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

gpt-oss-20b has enough public results to be ranked (#249); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

gpt-oss-20b OpenAI

32.1

Rank #249 Confirmed

Summary

  • gpt-oss-20b is cheaper at $0.018 / $0.09 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.

Side by side

gpt-oss-20b and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct specifications
gpt-oss-20bQwen2.5 14B Instruct
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.138.2
Released2025-08-052024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K131K
Max output16K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.018$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$0.09$1.40
Results tracked343

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

gpt-oss-20b: 37.1 (#185), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.1 (#187)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmarkgpt-oss-20bQwen2.5 14B Instruct
SciCode34.4%—
WeirdML40.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—39.8%
LMArena Coding1307—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.2%
ALE-Bench566.05—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

gpt-oss-20b: 9.2 (#146), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmarkgpt-oss-20bQwen2.5 14B Instruct
Terminal-Bench3.4%—

Reasoning Not comparable

gpt-oss-20b: 18.8 (#251), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmarkgpt-oss-20bQwen2.5 14B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark53.2%—
CritPt1.4%—
Chess Puzzles4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1274—
DTBench68%—
LMCA14.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index137.81—

Math Not comparable

gpt-oss-20b: 37.6 (#93), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Math benchmarks
Benchmarkgpt-oss-20bQwen2.5 14B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202565.3%—
Omni-MATH56.5%—
LMArena Math1317—

Knowledge Not comparable

gpt-oss-20b: 34.6 (#186), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmarkgpt-oss-20bQwen2.5 14B Instruct
GPQA Diamond60.8%—
MMLU-Pro74%—
GPQA (HELM)59.4%—
LMArena Expert1258—
MMLU—79.9%

Multilingual Not comparable

gpt-oss-20b: 42.4 (#192), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmarkgpt-oss-20bQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1269—
LMArena Chinese1311—
LMArena German1249—
LMArena Japanese1245—
LMArena Korean1239—
LMArena Russian1279—
LMArena Spanish1267—

Instruction Following Not comparable

gpt-oss-20b: 62.0 (#235), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmarkgpt-oss-20bQwen2.5 14B Instruct
IFEval73.2%—
LMArena Instruction Following1236—

Long Context Not comparable

gpt-oss-20b: 37.9 (#203), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmarkgpt-oss-20bQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1251—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

gpt-oss-20b: 35.8 (#260), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmarkgpt-oss-20bQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Text1288—
LMArena Creative Writing1201—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing666—
WildBench73.7%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1268—

Frequently asked questions

Is gpt-oss-20b better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

gpt-oss-20b has enough public results to be ranked (#249); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, gpt-oss-20b or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

gpt-oss-20b is cheaper. It lists at $0.018 per million input tokens and $0.09 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 14B Instruct lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is gpt-oss-20b or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (37.1 vs 37.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks do gpt-oss-20b and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. gpt-oss-20b has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper