Model comparison
Muse Glimmer vs Qwen1.5-32B
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 30.5 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 Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Muse Glimmer leads 38.5 to 13.5.
Side by side
| Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 30.5 |
| Released | 2026-08-10 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1416 | 1155 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
| SciCode | 44.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1396 | 1130 |
| CritPt | 2.6% | — |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1417 | 1155 |
Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | 1177 |
| LMArena Russian | 1390 | 1073 |
| LMArena French | — | 1101 |
| LMArena German | — | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1008 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1089 |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | 1116 |
Long Context Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1382 | 1146 |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1399 | 1140 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen1.5-32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.