Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Muse Glimmer
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Glimmer in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Muse Glimmer leads 57.5 to 24.0.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Muse Glimmer | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 41.7 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2026-08-10 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1416 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1355 |
| SciCode | — | 44.9% |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1396 |
| CritPt | — | 2.6% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1417 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1386 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1390 |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1375 |
Long Context Muse Glimmer leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1382 |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1399 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Muse Glimmer?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Muse Glimmer better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Muse Glimmer share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.