Model comparison

Qwen2-72B vs Qwen3 14B

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #300 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2-72B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 14B in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 14B leads 39.3 to 21.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 40.8% for Qwen2-72B and 63.8% for Qwen3 14B.

Side by side

Qwen2-72B and Qwen3 14B specifications
Qwen2-72BQwen3 14B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.035.5
Released2024-06-072025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—8K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.35
Output $ / M tokens—$1.40
Results tracked2612

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 14B leads

Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3 14B
SciCode—31.6%
WeirdML11.3%—
BigCodeBench Instruct38.5%—
LMArena Coding1196—
BigCodeBench Complete54%—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 14B leads

Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146), Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41%
TheAgentCompany1.1%—
METR Time Horizons29.9%—

Reasoning Qwen2-72B leads

Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3 14B
Epoch Capabilities Index125.28138.23
Kagi LLM Benchmark—49.1%
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1191—
DTBench—64%
LMCA—18.2%

Math Qwen3 14B leads

Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.4%
LMArena Math1235—
MATH Level 539.1%—

Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads

Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3 14B
GPQA Diamond40.8%63.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.4%
LMArena Expert1171—
MMLU82.4%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244), Qwen3 14B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English1176—
LMArena Chinese1240—
LMArena French1170—
LMArena German1151—
LMArena Japanese1111—
LMArena Korean1083—
LMArena Russian1169—
LMArena Spanish1169—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241), Qwen3 14B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following1181—

Long Context Qwen3 14B leads

Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1192—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241), Qwen3 14B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3 14B
LMArena Text1203—
LMArena Creative Writing1181—
LMArena Multi-Turn1196—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2-72B better than Qwen3 14B?

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2-72B or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2-72B and Qwen3 14B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2-72B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper