Model comparison
Llama 3.1-70B 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 3.1-70B 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 13.5.
Side by side
| Llama 3.1-70B | Muse Glimmer | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 41.7 |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2026-08-10 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1260 | 1416 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1355 |
| SciCode | — | 44.9% |
| WeirdML | 9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112), Muse Glimmer: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 6.9% | — |
| BALROG | 27.9% | — |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1241 | 1396 |
| CritPt | — | 2.6% |
| DTBench | 60% | — |
| LMCA | 14.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.92 | — |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1252 | 1417 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 3.6% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 21% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 36.7% | — |
Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269), Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1209 | 1386 |
| GPQA Diamond | 44.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 65.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 42.6% | — |
| MMLU | 80.1% | — |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1219 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1215 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1390 |
| LMArena French | 1261 | — |
| LMArena German | 1222 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1132 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1140 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1253 | — |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1231 | 1375 |
| IFEval | 82.1% | — |
Long Context Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1241 | 1382 |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1261 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1232 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1256 | 1399 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 784 | — |
| WildBench | 75.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Muse Glimmer?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.1-70B or Muse Glimmer better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Muse Glimmer share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.