Model comparison
Muse Glimmer vs Qwen1.5-14B
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Muse Glimmer leads 57.5 to 33.6.
Side by side
| Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2026-08-10 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1416 | 1138 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
| SciCode | 44.9% | — |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1396 | 1113 |
| CritPt | 2.6% | — |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1417 | 1125 |
Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1094 |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | 1147 |
| LMArena Russian | 1390 | 1046 |
| LMArena French | — | 1116 |
| LMArena German | — | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1085 |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | 1102 |
Long Context Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1382 | 1113 |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1399 | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen1.5-14B?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen1.5-14B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.