ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3 14B vs QwQ 32B

Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3 14B 54, QwQ 32B 53). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 14B

    Released Apr 29, 2025

    54/100
    • ECI138.2
    • Price$0.35 / $1.40
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 14B

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.6
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Qwen3 14B 54/100, QwQ 32B 53/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3 14B for raw capability. 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
  • Lowest priceQwen3 14BQwen3 14B $0.613 · QwQ 32B $0.745 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameQwen3 14B 131,072 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3 14B: Text · QwQ 32B: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3 14BQwQ 32B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6362
Price25%6056
Inputs & features15%3535
Context window10%2424
Overall100%54/10053/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3 14B vs QwQ 32B specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3 14BAlibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)138.2 (best)137.6
ECI rank#107 of 148 (best)#109 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions63.8%65.3% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics66.4% (best)59.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.35 (best)$0.66
Output$1.40$1.00 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.613 (best)$0.745
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens131,072 tokens
Max output8,192 tokens8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model IDqwen3-14b—
API providers11
ReleasedApr 29, 2025Mar 5, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 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.

  • Qwen3 14B$6.30
  • QwQ 32B$8.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3 14B or QwQ 32B?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Qwen3 14B 54/100, QwQ 32B 53/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3 14B for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 14B or QwQ 32B?

Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 input / $1.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba 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 $0.745 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) and QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 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 — QwQ 32B 65.3%, Qwen3 14B 63.8%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3 14B 66.4%, QwQ 32B 59.2%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for 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. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 14B and QwQ 32B share the same 131,072-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 14B up to 8,192, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3 14B accepts text; QwQ 32B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Qwen3 14B is the newest, released Apr 29, 2025. QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons