Model comparison

Qwen3 14B vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 12 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3 14B

Alibaba (Qwen)

35.0

Rank #222 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B

Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #166 Confirmed

Summary

They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 14B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 6 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in long context, where Qwen3 32B leads 43.7 to 38.0.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 62.5% for Qwen3 14B and 74.2% for Qwen3 32B.
Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.

Side by side

Qwen3 14B and Qwen3 32B specifications
	Qwen3 14B	Qwen3 32B
Provider	Alibaba (Qwen)	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	35.0	38.8
Released	2025-04	2025-04
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	131K	131K
Max output	8K	16K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.35	$0.70
Output $ / M tokens	$1.40	$2.80
Results tracked	12	26

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3 14B	Qwen3 32B
SciCode	31.6%	35.4%
Aider Polyglot	—	40%
LMArena Coding	—	1358

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads

Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78), Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3 14B	Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	41%	48.7%

Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads

Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3 14B	Qwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark	49.1%	54.9%
CritPt	0%	0.3%
Chess Puzzles	4%	5%
DTBench	64%	67.5%
LMCA	18.2%	17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index	138.23	138.51
LMArena Hard Prompts	—	1335

Math Too close to call

Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102), Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3 14B	Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	66.4%	66.9%
LMArena Math	—	1399

Knowledge Too close to call

Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3 14B	Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond	63.8%	65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	5.4%	5.9%
LMArena Expert	—	1362

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3 14B: —, Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3 14B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English	—	1317
LMArena Chinese	—	1357
LMArena German	—	1341
LMArena Russian	—	1311

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3 14B: —, Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3 14B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following	—	1305

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201), Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3 14B	Qwen3 32B
Fiction.LiveBench	62.5%	74.2%
LMArena Longer Query	—	1327

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3 14B: —, Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3 14B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text	—	1340
LMArena Creative Writing	—	1297
LMArena Multi-Turn	—	1331

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3 14B better than Qwen3 32B?

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 14B or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Qwen3 14B or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (36.7 vs 37.3); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3 14B and Qwen3 32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 14B has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.