Model comparison
Muse Glimmer vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Muse Glimmer leads 38.8 to 12.6.
Side by side
| Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 29.0 |
| Released | 2026-08-10 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 15 |
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 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
| SciCode | 44.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1416 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 2.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1396 | — |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.51 |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1417 | — |
Knowledge Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | — |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1390 | — |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1382 | — |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1399 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 36.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.