Model comparison
Muse Glimmer vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Muse Glimmer leads 36.1 to 15.3.
Side by side
| Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 29.7 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1417 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1395 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1419 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1388 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1393 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1374 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1381 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1338 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1398 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (38.7 vs 38.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.