Model comparison
Llama 2-13B vs Muse Glimmer
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-13B scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Glimmer in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Muse Glimmer leads 57.5 to 29.8.
Side by side
| Llama 2-13B | Muse Glimmer | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 41.7 |
| Released | 2023-07-18 | 2026-08-10 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 32 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-13B: 30.9 (#291), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1062 | 1416 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1355 |
| SciCode | — | 44.9% |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-13B: 12.8 (#337), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1051 | 1396 |
| CritPt | — | 2.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| DTBench | 42.2% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 58.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 106.17 | — |
| HellaSwag | 80.7% | — |
| LAMBADA | 76.5% | — |
| PIQA | 80.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 72.8% | — |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-13B: 31.1 (#229), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1065 | 1417 |
| GSM8K | 36.9% | — |
Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-13B: 28.1 (#249), Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1030 | 1386 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 60.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 82.4% | — |
| MMLU | 55.6% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 57% | — |
| TriviaQA | 79.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 2-13B: —, Muse Glimmer: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 55.8% | — |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-13B: 26.5 (#279), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1024 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1001 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 1055 | 1390 |
| LMArena French | 1044 | — |
| LMArena German | 1009 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 894 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 953 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1087 | — |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-13B: 53.3 (#287), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1045 | 1375 |
Long Context Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-13B: 32.3 (#269), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1064 | 1382 |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-13B: 29.8 (#289), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1084 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1047 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1050 | 1399 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 2-13B better than Muse Glimmer?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 2-13B or Muse Glimmer better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 30.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 2-13B and Muse Glimmer share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-13B has 32 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.