ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GPT-4.1 mini vs Qwen3 14B vs QwQ 32B

GPT-4.1 mini comes out ahead, 60 to 54 and 53 on our weighted score, though Qwen3 14B is 13% cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    OpenAI

    GPT-4.1 mini

    Released Apr 14, 2025

    60/100
    • ECI135.0
    • Price$0.40 / $1.60
    • Context1.05M
  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 14B

    Released Apr 29, 2025

    54/100
    • ECI138.2
    • Price$0.35 / $1.40
    • Context131K
  3. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.6
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
01 — Verdict

GPT-4.1 mini is our pick

GPT-4.1 mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against Qwen3 14B (54) and QwQ 32B (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 14B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3 14BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 14B 138.2 · QwQ 32B 137.6 · GPT-4.1 mini 135.0
  • Lowest priceQwen3 14BQwen3 14B $0.613 · GPT-4.1 mini $0.70 · QwQ 32B $0.745 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini 1,047,576 · Qwen3 14B 131,072 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3 14B: Text · QwQ 32B: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3 14B and QwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGPT-4.1 miniQwen3 14BQwQ 32B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%596362
Price25%576056
Inputs & features15%703535
Context window10%612424
Overall100%60/10054/10053/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

GPT-4.1 mini vs Qwen3 14B vs QwQ 32B specifications side by side
SpecificationGPT-4.1 miniOpenAIQwen3 14BAlibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)135.0138.2 (best)137.6
ECI rank#115 of 148#107 of 148 (best)#109 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions65.9% (best)63.8%65.3%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics6.7%——
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics44.7%66.4% (best)59.2%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions12.7%——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.40$0.35 (best)$0.66
Output$1.60$1.40$1.00 (best)
Cached input$0.10——
Blended (3:1)$0.70$0.613 (best)$0.745
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial OpenAI APIOfficial Alibaba APIMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window1,047,576 tokens (best)131,072 tokens131,072 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens (best)8,192 tokens8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoNo
PDFsYesNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningNoYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenOpen
API model IDgpt-4.1-miniqwen3-14b—
API providers24 (best)11
ReleasedApr 14, 2025Apr 29, 2025Mar 5, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2024Apr 2025Apr 2024
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • GPT-4.1 mini$7.20
  • Qwen3 14B$6.30
  • QwQ 32B$8.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GPT-4.1 mini, Qwen3 14B or QwQ 32B?

GPT-4.1 mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against Qwen3 14B (54) and QwQ 32B (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 14B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 mini, Qwen3 14B or QwQ 32B?

Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 input / $1.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). GPT-4.1 mini costs $0.40 input / $1.60 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price); QwQ 32B costs $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.613 per million tokens for Qwen3 14B versus $0.70 for GPT-4.1 mini (1.1× as much) and $0.745 for QwQ 32B (1.2× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 14B 138.2 (#107 of 148), QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148) and GPT-4.1 mini 135.0 (#115 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (133.5–140.1 vs 133.1–141.7), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GPT-4.1 mini 65.9%, QwQ 32B 65.3%, Qwen3 14B 63.8%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3 14B 66.4%, QwQ 32B 59.2%, GPT-4.1 mini 44.7%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GPT-4.1 mini, Qwen3 14B and QwQ 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3 14B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-4.1 mini has the largest context window at 1,047,576 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3 14B and 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: GPT-4.1 mini up to 32,768, Qwen3 14B up to 8,192, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GPT-4.1 mini accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3 14B accepts text; QwQ 32B accepts text. GPT-4.1 mini handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3 14B and QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GPT-4.1 mini is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3 14B is the newest, released Apr 29, 2025. GPT-4.1 mini came out Apr 14, 2025; QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GPT-4.1 mini Apr 2024, Qwen3 14B Apr 2025, QwQ 32B Apr 2024.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.