Model comparison

Muse Glimmer vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Muse Glimmer Meta

41.7

Rank #131 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

31.9

Rank #267 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Muse Glimmer leads 38.8 to 19.3.

Side by side

Muse Glimmer and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct specifications
Muse GlimmerQwen2.5 72B Instruct
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.731.9
Released2026-08-102024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—8K
Input $ / M tokens—$1.40
Output $ / M tokens—$5.60
Results tracked1543

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Muse Glimmer leads

Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 33.2 (#260)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Coding14161292
LMArena WebDev1355—
SciCode44.9%—
WeirdML—16%
BigCodeBench Instruct—45.8%
BigCodeBench Complete—55.9%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.1 (#133)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen2.5 72B Instruct
TheAgentCompany—5.7%
BALROG—16.2%
METR Time Horizons—35.8%

Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads

Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.3 (#199)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts13961271
CritPt2.6%—
DTBench—62.9%
LMCA—13.4%
BIG-Bench Hard—79.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—129
ForecastBench—57.5
HellaSwag—84.8%
PIQA—82.6%
WinoGrande—82.3%

Math Muse Glimmer leads

Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 19.3 (#287)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Math14171283
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—8.1%
Omni-MATH—33%
MATH Level 5—63.2%

Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads

Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 27.0 (#253)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Expert13861245
GPQA Diamond—49.1%
MMLU-Pro—63.1%
Confabulations—19.1%
GPQA (HELM)—42.6%
ARC (AI2) Challenge—94.5%
MMLU—85.3%
TriviaQA—71.9%

Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads

Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 41.0 (#213)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English13841252
LMArena Chinese14121272
LMArena Russian13901264
LMArena French—1280
LMArena German—1234
LMArena Japanese—1180
LMArena Korean—1188
LMArena Spanish—1256

Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads

Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 65.5 (#221)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following13751254
IFEval—80.6%

Long Context Muse Glimmer leads

Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 38.9 (#188)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query13821282

Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads

Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 46.7 (#215)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text13891269
LMArena Creative Writing13391221
LMArena Multi-Turn13991272
WildBench—80.2%

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct better for coding?

Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper