Model comparison
Llama 2-70B vs Muse Glimmer
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Glimmer in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Muse Glimmer leads 38.5 to 7.4.
Side by side
| Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 24.4 | 41.7 |
| Released | 2023-07-18 | 2026-08-10 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1079 | 1416 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1355 |
| SciCode | — | 44.9% |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1073 | 1396 |
| CritPt | — | 2.6% |
| DTBench | 41.6% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 64.9% | — |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | 50% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.79 | — |
| ForecastBench | 51.4 | — |
| HellaSwag | 85.3% | — |
| LAMBADA | 78.9% | — |
| PIQA | 82.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.2% | — |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1091 | 1417 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 3.3% | — |
| GSM8K | 69.6% | — |
Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310), Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1039 | 1386 |
| GPQA Diamond | 26.3% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 78.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.6% | — |
| MMLU | 69.9% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 60.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 87.6% | — |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1045 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 995 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 1083 | 1390 |
| LMArena French | 1090 | — |
| LMArena German | 1041 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 927 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 964 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1143 | — |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1071 | 1375 |
Long Context Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1062 | 1382 |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1115 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1075 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1088 | 1399 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 2-70B better than Muse Glimmer?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 2-70B or Muse Glimmer better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Muse Glimmer share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.