Model comparison
Llama 3.2 1B vs Qwen-14B
Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen-14B in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen-14B leads 28.7 to 9.7.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 19.9 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 60K | — |
| Max output | 54K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.027 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 22 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen-14B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333), Qwen-14B: 30.6 (#283)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1071 | 1072 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |
Reasoning Qwen-14B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304), Qwen-14B: 18.7 (#255)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | 1027 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.95 | 112.8 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Qwen-14B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308), Qwen-14B: 28.7 (#224)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1086 | 1068 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual Qwen-14B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287), Qwen-14B: 27.7 (#270)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1042 |
| LMArena Chinese | 958 | 1077 |
| LMArena German | 1014 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285), Qwen-14B: 52.6 (#284)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | 1031 |
Long Context Too close to call
Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#276)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | 1029 |
Writing & Preference Qwen-14B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305), Qwen-14B: 27.8 (#294)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | 1022 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Qwen-14B?
Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Qwen-14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 30.6 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen-14B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.