Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Qwen3 14B

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 8.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 14B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 5 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B

Summary

They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 14B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 14B leads 39.3 to 7.2.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B and 66.4% for Qwen3 14B.
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
Qwen3 14B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 60K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen3 14B specifications
	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 14B
Provider	Meta	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	20.1	35.5
Released	2024-09-24	2025-04
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	60K	131K
Max output	54K	8K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.027	$0.35
Output $ / M tokens	$0.20	$1.40
Results tracked	22	12

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 14B
SciCode	—	31.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct	8.2%	—
LMArena Coding	1070	—
BigCodeBench Complete	11.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	10.8%	41%
BALROG	6.6%	—

Reasoning Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 14B
Chess Puzzles	0%	4%
Epoch Capabilities Index	101.99	138.23
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	49.1%
CritPt	—	0%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1044	—
DTBench	—	64%
LMCA	—	18.2%

Math Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	0.6%	66.4%
LMArena Math	1086	—

Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 14B
GPQA Diamond	23.9%	63.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	5.4%
LMArena Expert	1007	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Qwen3 14B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English	973	—
LMArena Chinese	959	—
LMArena German	1014	—
LMArena Russian	941	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Qwen3 14B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following	1031	—

Long Context Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench	—	62.5%
LMArena Longer Query	1050	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Qwen3 14B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 14B
LMArena Text	1055	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1033	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	200	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1030	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Qwen3 14B?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen3 14B?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 14B does, with 131K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen3 14B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.