Model comparison

o3-mini vs Qwen1.5-14B

o3-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.7 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

o3-mini OpenAI

36.7

Rank #205 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.1

Rank #250 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. o3-mini scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in instruction following, where o3-mini leads 75.3 to 57.1.
  • Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o3-mini and Qwen1.5-14B specifications
o3-miniQwen1.5-14B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.732.1
Released2024-12-202024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K—
Max output100K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.10—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked5117

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding o3-mini leads

o3-mini: 41.4 (#116), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.5 (#259)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Coding13781138
Aider Polyglot60.4%—
SciCode39.8%—
GSO1.3%—
WeirdML43.7%—
LiveBench Coding82.7%—
CadEval54%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o3-mini: 29.3 (#79), Qwen1.5-14B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-14B
Cybench22.5%—

Reasoning Qwen1.5-14B leads

o3-mini: 16.3 (#295), Qwen1.5-14B: 20.5 (#217)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts13661113
ARC-AGI-23%—
SimpleBench22.8%—
ARC-AGI-134.5%—
CritPt0.3%—
Chess Puzzles17%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.6%—
Mystery Game Puzzles7%—
DTBench68.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis70.6%—
LMCA19%—
Epoch Capabilities Index140.35—
ForecastBench59.6—
LiveBench75.9%—

Math Qwen1.5-14B leads

o3-mini: 27.6 (#236), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.9 (#214)

Knowledge o3-mini leads

o3-mini: 38.3 (#135), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.3 (#230)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Expert13641094
GPQA Diamond77%—
SimpleQA Verified15.3%—
Confabulations17.9%—
MMLU—68.6%

Multilingual o3-mini leads

o3-mini: 45.9 (#159), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.8 (#257)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Non-English13191095
LMArena Chinese13791147
LMArena French13331115
LMArena German13031043
LMArena Japanese12861019
LMArena Russian13041046
LMArena Spanish13211085
LMArena Korean1314—

Instruction Following o3-mini leads

o3-mini: 75.3 (#67), Qwen1.5-14B: 57.1 (#266)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Instruction Following13381102
LiveBench Instruction Following84.4%—

Long Context Too close to call

o3-mini: 33.8 (#251), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#252)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Longer Query13431113
Fiction.LiveBench50%—

Writing & Preference o3-mini leads

o3-mini: 50.4 (#177), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#270)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Text13371128
LMArena Creative Writing12861091
LMArena Multi-Turn13201110
Short-Story Creative Writing61.7%—
LiveBench Language50.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is o3-mini better than Qwen1.5-14B?

o3-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.7 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is o3-mini or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

o3-mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 32.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do o3-mini and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. o3-mini has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper