Qwen3 14B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash comes out ahead, 68 to 54 on our weighted score, though Qwen3 14B is 28% cheaper per token.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 14B
54/100- ECI138.2
- Price$0.35 / $1.40
- Context131K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash
68/100- ECI140.8
- Price$0.30 / $2.50
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 2.5 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against Qwen3 14B (54). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 14B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityGemini 2.5 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.8 · Qwen3 14B 138.2
- Lowest priceQwen3 14BQwen3 14B $0.613 · Gemini 2.5 Flash $0.85 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash 1,048,576 · Qwen3 14B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 14B: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3 14BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3 14B | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 63 | 67 |
| Price | 25% | 60 | 53 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 100 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 54/100 | 68/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3 14BAlibaba (Qwen) | Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 138.2 | 140.8 (best) |
| ECI rank | #107 of 148 | #97 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 63.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 66.4% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.35 | $0.30 (best) |
| Output | $1.40 (best) | $2.50 |
| Cached input | — | $0.03 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.613 (best) | $0.85 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Google API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | qwen3-14b | gemini-2.5-flash |
| API providers | 1 | 22 (best) |
| Released | Apr 29, 2025 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3 14B$6.30
- Gemini 2.5 Flash$8.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3 14B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against Qwen3 14B (54). It leads on capability, 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, Qwen3 14B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 input / $1.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.613 per million tokens for Qwen3 14B versus $0.85 for Gemini 2.5 Flash (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.8 (#97 of 148) and Qwen3 14B 138.2 (#107 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (138.5–142.3 vs 133.5–140.1), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 14B and Gemini 2.5 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemini 2.5 Flash leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3 14B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 14B up to 8,192, Gemini 2.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3 14B accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3 14B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. Qwen3 14B came out Apr 29, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 14B Apr 2025, Gemini 2.5 Flash Jan 2025.
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.
Related comparisons
- Add DeepSeek-V3.1Three-way comparison
- Qwen3 14B vs DeepSeek-V3.1DeepSeek · ECI 139.9
- Qwen3 14B vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- Qwen3 14B vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- Gemini 2.5 Flash vs DeepSeek-V3.1DeepSeek · ECI 139.9
- Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 235B-A22BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 139.4
- Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5 MiniOpenAI · ECI 145.5
