Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Glimmer
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Muse Glimmer in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.7 to 27.2.
- Muse Glimmer has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 41.3 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 68 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15), Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1546 | 1355 |
| LMArena Coding | 1535 | 1417 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4), Muse Glimmer: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21), Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1395 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.36 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1517 | 1419 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23), Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1388 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67), Muse Glimmer: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1490 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1393 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | — |
| LMArena German | 1504 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1512 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1374 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1381 |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1506 | 1338 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1514 | 1398 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Muse Glimmer?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Muse Glimmer better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Muse Glimmer share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 13.