Model comparison
Qwen3 14B vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 14B scores higher in 3 categories and QwQ-32B in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 38.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 62.5% for Qwen3 14B and 83.3% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| Qwen3 14B | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.5 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2025-04 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | — |
| Max output | 8K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.35 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 14B leads
Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| SciCode | 31.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 41% | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 4% | 5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 138.23 | 137.6 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 49.1% | — |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1325 |
| DTBench | 64% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 18.2% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Too close to call
Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1359 |
Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads
Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 63.8% | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1324 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3 14B: —, QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1378 |
| LMArena French | — | 1336 |
| LMArena German | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1354 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3 14B: —, QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1297 |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 62.5% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1308 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3 14B: —, QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1288 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1314 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3 14B better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen3 14B or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3 14B and QwQ-32B share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 14B has 12 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.