# Qwen-14B vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwen-14b-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen-14B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 27.6.
- Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 40.7 |
| Rank | 275 | 146 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1071 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |

## Reasoning

- Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1027 | 1360 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.03 | 132.53 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 55% | — |
| LAMBADA | 71.1% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
| PIQA | 79.9% | — |

## Math

- Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1068 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| GSM8K | 61.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- Qwen-14B: —
- Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1337 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 84.4% | — |
| BoolQ | 86.2% | — |
| MMLU | 66.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1041 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1077 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1028 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1051 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1028 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1022 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

### Is Qwen-14B better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Qwen-14B or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Qwen-14B and Qwen2.5-Max share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen-14B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.