Model comparison
Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3 14B
Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.0 to 27.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 4.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 14B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 4 Scout scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 14B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 14B leads 37.0 to 18.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 7.8% for Llama 4 Scout and 66.4% for Qwen3 14B.
- Llama 4 Scout is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.4 | 35.0 |
| Released | 2025-04-05 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 4K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 43 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 14B leads
Llama 4 Scout: 19.9 (#334), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 17% | 31.6% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 9.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1286 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 43.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 14B leads
Llama 4 Scout: 24.4 (#109), Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 28.1% | 41% |
Reasoning Qwen3 14B leads
Llama 4 Scout: 9.2 (#339), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 36.9% | 49.1% |
| CritPt | 0% | 0% |
| DTBench | 57.9% | 64% |
| LMCA | 12% | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 129.64 | 138.23 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 0.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1266 | — |
| ForecastBench | 57.5 | — |
Math Qwen3 14B leads
Llama 4 Scout: 18.4 (#280), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 7.8% | 66.4% |
| Omni-MATH | 37.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1286 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 62.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 0% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads
Llama 4 Scout: 31.8 (#208), Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 51.8% | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.7% | 5.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | 74.2% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 50.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1236 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 4 Scout: 31.6 (#98), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1118 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 34.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 4 Scout: 41.3 (#207), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1253 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1256 | — |
| LMArena French | 1283 | — |
| LMArena German | 1274 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1207 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1263 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1277 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 4 Scout: 66.0 (#212), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 81.8% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1248 | — |
Long Context Qwen3 14B leads
Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#289), Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 36% | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1265 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 4 Scout: 37.1 (#256), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1279 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1249 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 783 | — |
| WildBench | 78% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1281 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 4 Scout better than Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.0 to 27.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 4.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 14B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3 14B?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.
Is Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.7 versus 19.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 14B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3 14B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 4 Scout has 43 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.