Model comparison
Grok Build 0.1 vs Qwen3 14B
Grok Build 0.1 and Qwen3 14B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (35.8 vs 35.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok Build 0.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 14B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok Build 0.1 leads 31.3 to 18.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 50.2% for Grok Build 0.1 and 31.6% for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $2 for Grok Build 0.1.
- Grok Build 0.1 accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.8 | 35.0 |
| Released | 2026-04-16 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 256K | 131K |
| Max output | 256K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1 | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2 | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok Build 0.1 leads
Grok Build 0.1: 42.5 (#90), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 50.2% | 31.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 14B leads
Grok Build 0.1: 22.5 (#122), Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
| GBAEval | 2.4% | — |
Reasoning Grok Build 0.1 leads
Grok Build 0.1: 31.3 (#73), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 9.1% | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |
Math Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok Build 0.1 better than Qwen3 14B?
Grok Build 0.1 and Qwen3 14B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (35.8 vs 35.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Grok Build 0.1 lists at $1 and $2.
Is Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Grok Build 0.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok Build 0.1 does, with 256K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Grok Build 0.1 and Qwen3 14B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok Build 0.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.