Model comparison
Llama 3.2 1B vs Muse Glimmer
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B 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 21.3.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 20.1 | 41.7 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2026-08-10 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 60K | — |
| Max output | 54K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.027 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 22 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1070 | 1416 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1355 |
| SciCode | — | 44.9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Muse Glimmer: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | 1396 |
| CritPt | — | 2.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.99 | — |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1086 | 1417 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | 1386 |
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | — |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 959 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | 1390 |
| LMArena German | 1014 | — |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | 1375 |
Long Context Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | 1382 |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | 1399 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Muse Glimmer?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.2 1B or Muse Glimmer better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Muse Glimmer share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.