Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3 14B vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 14B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 27B in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 18.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 64% for Qwen3 14B and 88% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Both cost about the same: $0.35 input and $1.40 output per million tokens.
  • Qwen3.8 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Qwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index35.546.0
Released2025-042026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K262K
Max output8K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.35$0.04
Output $ / M tokens$1.40$2.30
Results tracked1231

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

BenchmarkQwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
SciCode31.6%46.6%
LMArena WebDev—1593
LMArena Coding—1482

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83), Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

BenchmarkQwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents—47.5%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard41%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

BenchmarkQwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
CritPt0%5.4%
DTBench64%88%
LMCA18.2%41.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index138.23149.38
ARC-AGI-2—42.4%
Kagi LLM Benchmark49.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-1—87.5%
Chess Puzzles4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1460
Surface Evolver Bench—45%

Math Qwen3 14B leads

Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

BenchmarkQwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202566.4%—
ProofBench—16%
LMArena Math—1456

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

BenchmarkQwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
GPQA Diamond63.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.4%—
LMArena Expert—1482

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

BenchmarkQwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

BenchmarkQwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English—1430
LMArena Chinese—1504
LMArena French—1465
LMArena German—1438
LMArena Japanese—1384
LMArena Korean—1393
LMArena Russian—1415
LMArena Spanish—1448

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

BenchmarkQwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following—1439

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

BenchmarkQwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
Fiction.LiveBench62.5%—
LMArena Longer Query—1450

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkQwen3 14BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text—1441
LMArena Creative Writing—1384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
LMArena Multi-Turn—1441

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3 14B better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 14B or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $2.30 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is Qwen3 14B or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 27B does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3 14B and Qwen3.8 27B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 14B has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper