Nova Pro 1.0 vs Qwen3 14B
Nova Pro 1.0 leads Qwen3 14B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.0 to 6.7, and Qwen3 14B costs 13.9x less per output token ($0.23 vs $3.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 11 benchmarks have a result for both.
Nova Pro 1.0 or Qwen3 14B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Nova Pro 1.0 for a larger context window (300K against 41K tokens) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 11
- Nova Pro 1.0 only
- 31
- Qwen3 14B only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 7 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Nova Pro 1.0
Nova Pro 1.0 leads, 7.0 against 6.7.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Nova Pro 1.0 has a Design Arena: websites result, 796.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Nova Pro 1.0
Nova Pro 1.0 takes 300K tokens against 41K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3 14B
Nova Pro 1.0 $0.0024, Qwen3 14B $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Nova Pro 1.0 not benchmarked, Qwen3 14B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 51.0 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- AA Math Index: Nova Pro 1.0 7.0 against Qwen3 14B 58.0, 51.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Nova Pro 1.0 $3.20 against Qwen3 14B $0.23 per million output tokens, 13.9x apart.
- Context window
- Nova Pro 1.0 takes 300K tokens, Qwen3 14B 41K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Nova Pro 1.0 | Bars | Qwen3 14B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 1 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 8 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index11
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.3% | 52.3% | Qwen3 14B |
| SciCode | Not measured | 30.7% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.1% | 5.3% | Nova Pro 1.0 |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1270 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1271 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 7.0 | 6.7 | Nova Pro 1.0 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 138.2 | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 14.0% | 34.5% | Qwen3 14B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 49.9% | 60.4% | Qwen3 14B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.2% | 4.5% | Qwen3 14B |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 63.8% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1246 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1211 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1259 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 7.0 | 58.0 | Qwen3 14B |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 7.0% | 58.0% | Qwen3 14B |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 66.4% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1252 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1261 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 69.1% | 77.4% | Qwen3 14B |
| MMLU | 82.0% | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1255 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1260 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1281 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1229 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 796 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 38.1% | 40.5% | Qwen3 14B |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 21.0% | 0.0% | Nova Pro 1.0 |
| DTBench | Not measured | 64.0% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 18.2% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Fiction.LiveBench | Not measured | 62.5% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| LMArena Text | 1259 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1235 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1212 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Vision | 980 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1276 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1233 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1244 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1243 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1200 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1203 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1271 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1182 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1240 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1246 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1255 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1247 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1210 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | 987 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3 14B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3 14B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3 14B costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Amazon Nova Pro 1.0 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Amazon | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | December 5, 2024 | April 28, 2025 |
| Context window | 300K | 41K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.80 | $0.11 |
| Output $/Mtok | $3.20 | $0.23 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Nova Pro 1.0 better than Qwen3 14B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Nova Pro 1.0 for a larger context window (300K against 41K tokens) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Nova Pro 1.0 or Qwen3 14B?
Nova Pro 1.0 costs $0.80 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B costs $0.11 and $0.23. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Nova Pro 1.0 or Qwen3 14B?
Nova Pro 1.0, with 300K tokens against 41K.
How many benchmarks is the Nova Pro 1.0 vs Qwen3 14B comparison based on?
11 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Nova Pro 1.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 14B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.