Model comparison
Muse Glimmer vs Qwen-14B
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Muse Glimmer leads 57.5 to 27.6.
Side by side
| Muse Glimmer | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2026-08-10 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1416 | 1071 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
| SciCode | 44.9% | — |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1396 | 1027 |
| CritPt | 2.6% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1417 | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | 1077 |
| LMArena Russian | 1390 | — |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | 1031 |
Long Context Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1382 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1399 | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen-14B?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen-14B share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.