Model comparison
Llama 3.1-405B vs Muse Glimmer
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.1-405B scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Glimmer in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Muse Glimmer leads 38.8 to 18.4.
Side by side
| Llama 3.1-405B | Muse Glimmer | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 30.7 | 41.7 |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2026-08-10 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 42 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 33.1 (#262), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | 1416 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1355 |
| SciCode | — | 44.9% |
| WeirdML | 21.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 21.0 (#140), Muse Glimmer: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 7.4% | — |
| Cybench | 7.5% | — |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 16.8 (#300), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1269 | 1396 |
| SimpleBench | 23% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 45% | — |
| CritPt | — | 2.6% |
| DTBench | 61.4% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 82.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 128.75 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
| HellaSwag | 89.2% | — |
| PIQA | 85.9% | — |
| WinoGrande | 89.2% | — |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 18.4 (#290), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1281 | 1417 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 9.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 24.9% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 49.8% | — |
Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#227), Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1243 | 1386 |
| GPQA Diamond | 50.9% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 72.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.6% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 52.2% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 95.3% | — |
| MMLU | 84.5% | — |
| TriviaQA | 82.7% | — |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 40.7 (#214), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1248 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 1265 | 1390 |
| LMArena French | 1279 | — |
| LMArena German | 1252 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1208 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1184 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1260 | — |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 65.9 (#214), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1259 | 1375 |
| IFEval | 81.1% | — |
Long Context Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#197), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1382 |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 38.9 (#251), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1284 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1262 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1297 | 1399 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 870 | — |
| WildBench | 78.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.1-405B better than Muse Glimmer?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.1-405B or Muse Glimmer better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-405B and Muse Glimmer share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-405B has 42 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.