Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Muse Glimmer

Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.9

Rank #327 Confirmed

Muse Glimmer Meta

41.7

Rank #131 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Glimmer in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Muse Glimmer leads 42.1 to 23.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 25.9% for GPT-4.1 nano and 44.9% for Muse Glimmer.
  • Muse Glimmer has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
ProviderOpenAIMeta
Noometry Index27.941.7
Released2025-04-142026-08-10
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3815

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Muse Glimmer leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
SciCode25.9%44.9%
LMArena Coding13061416
Aider Polyglot8.9%—
LMArena WebDev—1355
WeirdML19%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104), Muse Glimmer: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
CritPt0%2.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts12861396
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
DTBench52.5%—
LMCA5.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62—

Math Muse Glimmer leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
LMArena Math12741417
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%—
Omni-MATH36.7%—
MATH Level 570%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—

Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273), Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
LMArena Expert12721386
GPQA Diamond48.9%—
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113), Muse Glimmer: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
LMArena Non-English12601384
LMArena Chinese12701412
LMArena Russian12611390
LMArena German1288—
LMArena Japanese1198—

Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
LMArena Instruction Following12671375
IFEval84.3%—

Long Context Muse Glimmer leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
LMArena Longer Query12831382
Fiction.LiveBench25%—

Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Glimmer
LMArena Text12851389
LMArena Creative Writing12601339
LMArena Multi-Turn12771399
EQ-Bench Creative Writing946—
WildBench81.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than Muse Glimmer?

Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-4.1 nano or Muse Glimmer better for coding?

Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Glimmer share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper