R1 0528 vs Qwen3 14B
R1 0528 leads Qwen3 14B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 13.1 to 6.7, and Qwen3 14B costs 9.5x less per output token ($0.23 vs $2.18 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 14 benchmarks have a result for both.
R1 0528 or Qwen3 14B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick R1 0528 for a larger context window (164K against 41K tokens) and work measured by IFBench, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 14
- R1 0528 only
- 46
- Qwen3 14B only
- 6
- 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
R1 0528
R1 0528 leads, 13.1 against 6.7.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only R1 0528 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1149.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
R1 0528
R1 0528 takes 164K tokens against 41K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3 14B
R1 0528 $0.0016, Qwen3 14B $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- R1 0528 not benchmarked, Qwen3 14B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 23.0 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): R1 0528 55.7% against Qwen3 14B 0.0%, 55.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- R1 0528 $2.18 against Qwen3 14B $0.23 per million output tokens, 9.5x apart.
- Context window
- R1 0528 takes 164K 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 | R1 0528 | Bars | Qwen3 14B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 3 | 0 | ||
| Math | 2 | 0 | 1 tie | |
| Knowledge | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 2 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 12 | 1 | 1 tie |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | R1 0528 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | 71.4% | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 77.0% | 52.3% | R1 0528 |
| SciCode | Not measured | 30.7% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 15.9% | 5.3% | R1 0528 |
| WeirdML | 41.6% | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 804.1 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1427 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1435 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | R1 0528 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 13.1 | 6.7 | R1 0528 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 138.2 | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | R1 0528 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 36.5% | 34.5% | R1 0528 |
| METR time horizons | 53.8% | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | Not measured | 41.0% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| BrowseComp-Plus | 16.4% | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | R1 0528 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 81.3% | 60.4% | R1 0528 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 15.8% | 4.5% | R1 0528 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 76.3% | 63.8% | R1 0528 |
| ARC-AGI | 21.2% | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.1% | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| SimpleBench | 40.8% | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1415 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1394 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1422 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Not measured | 49.1% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | R1 0528 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 76.0 | 58.0 | R1 0528 |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 76.0% | 58.0% | R1 0528 |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 66.4% | 66.4% | Tie |
| MATH level 5 | 96.6% | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1400 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1415 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | R1 0528 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 84.9% | 77.4% | R1 0528 |
| LMArena Text: science | 1430 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1445 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1419 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1402 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | R1 0528 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1149 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1100 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1097 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1182 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1110 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1138 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1038 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21
| Benchmark | R1 0528 | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 39.6% | 40.5% | Qwen3 14B |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 55.7% | 0.0% | R1 0528 |
| DTBench | Not measured | 64.0% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 18.2% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 75.0% | 62.5% | R1 0528 |
| Creative writing (Lech Mazur) | 81.9% | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1428 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1382 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1405 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1437 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1412 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1442 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1404 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1391 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1360 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1417 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1411 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1423 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1428 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1405 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1391 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1402 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1400 | Not measured | Only R1 0528 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 | R1 0528 | 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 | DeepSeek R1 0528 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | DeepSeek | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | May 28, 2025 | April 28, 2025 |
| Context window | 164K | 41K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.50 | $0.11 |
| Output $/Mtok | $2.18 | $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 R1 0528 better than Qwen3 14B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick R1 0528 for a larger context window (164K against 41K tokens) and work measured by IFBench, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, R1 0528 or Qwen3 14B?
R1 0528 costs $0.50 per million input tokens and $2.18 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, R1 0528 or Qwen3 14B?
R1 0528, with 164K tokens against 41K.
How many benchmarks is the R1 0528 vs Qwen3 14B comparison based on?
14 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. R1 0528'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.