Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Glimmer
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 8 categories and Muse Glimmer in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 38.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 20.9% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 2.6% for Muse Glimmer.
- Muse Glimmer has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 41.7 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-08-10 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 65 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | 1355 |
| SciCode | 53.5% | 44.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | 1416 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Muse Glimmer: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 20.9% | 2.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1396 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | — |
| DTBench | 94.9% | — |
| LMCA | 57.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.21 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1417 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1386 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Muse Glimmer: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | 1390 |
| LMArena French | 1481 | — |
| LMArena German | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1375 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1382 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1399 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Muse Glimmer?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Muse Glimmer better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Muse Glimmer share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.