Qwen3 14B vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B leads Qwen3 14B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.3 to 6.7, and Qwen3 14B costs 1.7x less per output token ($0.23 vs $0.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 20 benchmarks have a result for both.
Qwen3 14B or Qwen3 32B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Qwen3 14B for output tokens 1.7x cheaper ($0.23 vs $0.40 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or SciCode, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 20
- Qwen3 14B only
- 0
- Qwen3 32B only
- 25
- 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
Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B leads, 7.3 against 6.7.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B takes 131K tokens against 41K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3 14B
Qwen3 14B $0.0002, Qwen3 32B $0.0003 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3 14B not benchmarked, Qwen3 32B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 10.2 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run): Qwen3 14B 58.0% against Qwen3 32B 73.0%, 15.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen3 14B $0.23 against Qwen3 32B $0.40 per million output tokens, 1.7x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen3 14B takes 41K tokens, Qwen3 32B 131K.
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 | Qwen3 14B | Bars | Qwen3 32B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 2 | ||
| Agentic work | 1 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 3 | ||
| Math | 0 | 3 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 2 | 2 | 1 tie | |
| All shared boards | 5 | 14 | 1 tie |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | Not measured | 40.0% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 52.3% | 54.6% | Qwen3 32B |
| SciCode | 30.7% | 36.0% | Qwen3 32B |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 5.3% | 3.0% | Qwen3 14B |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1357 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1366 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 6.7 | 7.3 | Qwen3 32B |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 138.2 | 138.4 | Qwen3 32B |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 34.5% | 29.8% | Qwen3 14B |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | 41.0% | 48.7% | Qwen3 32B |
| BrowseComp-Plus | Not measured | 10.7% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 60.4% | 66.8% | Qwen3 32B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.5% | 7.4% | Qwen3 32B |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 63.8% | 65.7% | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1334 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1362 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1350 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 49.1% | 48.7% | Qwen3 14B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 58.0 | 73.0 | Qwen3 32B |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 58.0% | 73.0% | Qwen3 32B |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 66.4% | 66.9% | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1399 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1420 | Only Qwen3 32B 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 | Qwen3 14B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 77.4% | 79.8% | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1372 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1368 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1324 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1318 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 40.5% | 36.3% | Qwen3 14B |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 0.0% | 0.0% | Tie |
| DTBench | 64.0% | 67.5% | Qwen3 32B |
| LMCA | 18.2% | 17.3% | Qwen3 14B |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 62.5% | 74.2% | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1340 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1305 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1297 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1359 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1317 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1357 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1341 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1311 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1331 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1327 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1298 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1279 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Qwen3 32B | 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 | Qwen3 14B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | April 28, 2025 | April 28, 2025 |
| Context window | 41K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.11 | $0.14 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.23 | $0.40 |
| 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 Qwen3 14B better than Qwen3 32B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3 14B for output tokens 1.7x cheaper ($0.23 vs $0.40 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or SciCode, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 14B or Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 14B costs $0.11 per million input tokens and $0.23 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B costs $0.14 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3 14B or Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B, with 131K tokens against 41K.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3 14B vs Qwen3 32B comparison based on?
20 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Qwen3 14B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 32B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.