Model comparison

Qwen1.5-110B vs Qwen3 14B

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-110B Alibaba (Qwen)

34.2

Rank #234 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 14B leads 39.3 to 31.2.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-110B and Qwen3 14B specifications
Qwen1.5-110BQwen3 14B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index34.235.5
Released2024-04-252025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—8K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.35
Output $ / M tokens—$1.40
Results tracked2012

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 14B leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3 14B
SciCode—31.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct35%—
LMArena Coding1184—
BigCodeBench Complete44.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-110B: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41%

Reasoning Qwen1.5-110B leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3 14B
Kagi LLM Benchmark—49.1%
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1168—
DTBench—64%
LMCA—18.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.23
ForecastBench57.7—

Math Qwen3 14B leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.4%
LMArena Math1185—

Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3 14B
GPQA Diamond—63.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.4%
LMArena Expert1144—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250), Qwen3 14B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English1142—
LMArena Chinese1206—
LMArena French1151—
LMArena German1123—
LMArena Japanese1074—
LMArena Korean1044—
LMArena Russian1118—
LMArena Spanish1142—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252), Qwen3 14B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following1158—

Long Context Qwen3 14B leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1157—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255), Qwen3 14B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3 14B
LMArena Text1175—
LMArena Creative Writing1148—
LMArena Multi-Turn1160—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-110B better than Qwen3 14B?

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-110B or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 33.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-110B and Qwen3 14B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-110B has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper