Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Glimmer
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Muse Glimmer in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 42.1.
- Muse Glimmer has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 41.7 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | 2026-08-10 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 78 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | 1355 |
| SciCode | 42.8% | 44.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1416 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Muse Glimmer: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 2% | 2.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1396 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1417 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 1386 |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Muse Glimmer: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | 1390 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | — |
| LMArena German | 1487 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1375 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1382 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1399 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Muse Glimmer?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Muse Glimmer better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Muse Glimmer share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.