K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B: The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, K-EXAONE (Reasoning) emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Qwen Chat 14B remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

K-EXAONE (Reasoning)

Other

Reasoning: 9
Coding: 3
Multimodal: 3
Long Context: 4
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 115.905tokens/sec

Qwen Chat 14B

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 6
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 1
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: —

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `K-EXAONE (Reasoning)` vs `Qwen Chat 14B`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B debate, K-EXAONE (Reasoning) scores 90 against Qwen Chat 14B's 60. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

K-EXAONE (Reasoning)300ms

Qwen Chat 14B300ms

Tokens per Second

K-EXAONE (Reasoning)115.905

Qwen Chat 14B46

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B

Power is only one part of the equation. This K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, K-EXAONE (Reasoning) would cost $0.018, whereas Qwen Chat 14B would cost $0.018. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B Battle for You?

Choose K-EXAONE (Reasoning) if...

Your top priority is raw performance and capability.

You are working in a technical or scientific field requiring the highest accuracy.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Choose Qwen Chat 14B if...

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

You prioritize cost-effectiveness over maximum performance.

Your workload requires consistent, reliable performance.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the K-EXAONE (Reasoning) vs Qwen Chat 14B Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/