ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

QwQ 32B vs Qwen3 14B

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)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

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

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 14B

    Released Apr 29, 2025

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

  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 sameQwQ 32B 131,072 · Qwen3 14B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsQwQ 32B: Text · Qwen3 14B: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwQ 32BQwen3 14B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6263
Price25%5660
Inputs & features15%3535
Context window10%2424
Overall100%53/10054/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

QwQ 32B vs Qwen3 14B specifications side by side
SpecificationQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 14BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)137.6138.2 (best)
ECI rank#109 of 148#107 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions65.3% (best)63.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics59.2%66.4% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.66$0.35 (best)
Output$1.00 (best)$1.40
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.745$0.613 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersOfficial Alibaba API
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 ID—qwen3-14b
API providers11
ReleasedMar 5, 2025Apr 29, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2024Apr 2025
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.

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

Which should you choose?

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

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, QwQ 32B or Qwen3 14B?

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 QwQ 32B and Qwen3 14B 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?

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

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

QwQ 32B accepts text; Qwen3 14B 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: QwQ 32B Apr 2024, Qwen3 14B Apr 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons