Model Comparison
Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) 10 metric wins Strongest on: Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding
Best Value
Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
42.2 reasoning / $0.38/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning)
$0.23/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning)
48.3 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning)
37.4 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning) is 2.6x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning) generates about 1.3x as many tokens per second as Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning) by 6.2 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning) by 25.0 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.23/1M | $0.60/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.82/1M | $3.60/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.38/1M | $1.35/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 28, 2025 | Feb 16, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 64.7 tok/s | 51.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1030ms | 1958ms |
| Latency | 1030ms | 1958ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 32.4 |
| Reasoning Score | 42.2 | 48.3 |
| Intelligence | 12.8 | 40.1 |
| Coding | 12.4 | 37.4 |
| Math | 58.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 47.0% | 86.1% |
| MMLU Pro | 67.5% | — |
| HLE | 4.2% | 18.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 28.0% | — |
| MATH 500 | 87.1% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 58.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 28.0% | — |
| SciCode | 26.5% | 41.1% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 58.0% |
| IFBench | 23.9% | 51.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 32.2% | 83.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 5.3% | 35.6% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.23/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 48.3 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 37.4 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen3 14B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
