Qwen3 14B vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2
Qwen3 14B comes out ahead, 54 to 44 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 14B
54/100- ECI138.2
- Price$0.35 / $1.40
- Context131K
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2
44/100- ECI133.5
- Price$3.00 / $15.00
- Context200K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3 14B is our pick
Qwen3 14B is the better all-round choice, scoring 54/100 against Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (44). It leads on capability and price. Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 wins on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwen3 14BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 14B 138.2 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5
- Lowest priceQwen3 14BQwen3 14B $0.613 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 200,000 · Qwen3 14B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2Qwen3 14B: Text · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingQwen3 14BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3 14B | Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 63 | 57 |
| Price | 25% | 60 | 13 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 60 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 54/100 | 44/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3 14BAlibaba (Qwen) | Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 138.2 (best) | 133.5 |
| ECI rank | #107 of 148 (best) | #119 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 63.8% (best) | 55.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 66.4% (best) | 8.5% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.35 (best) | $3.00 |
| Output | $1.40 (best) | $15.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.613 (best) | $6.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 200,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | qwen3-14b | — |
| API providers | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Apr 29, 2025 | Oct 22, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | Apr 30, 2024 |
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
- Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2$60.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3 14B or Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2?
Qwen3 14B is the better all-round choice, scoring 54/100 against Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (44). It leads on capability and price. Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 wins on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 14B or Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2?
Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 input / $1.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 costs $3.00 input / $15.00 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 $6.00 for Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (9.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3 14B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 14B 138.2 (#107 of 148) and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5 (#119 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (133.5–140.1 vs 129.2–137.5), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3 14B 63.8%, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 55.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3 14B 66.4%, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 8.5%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 14B and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 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?
Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3 14B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 14B up to 8,192, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3 14B accepts text; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3 14B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3 14B is the newest, released Apr 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 came out Oct 22, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 14B Apr 2025, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 Apr 30, 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.
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 Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.8
- Qwen3 14B vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 vs Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle · ECI 134.7
- Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 vs GPT-4.1OpenAI · ECI 136.8
