Model comparison
Muse Glimmer vs Qwen3 14B
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Muse Glimmer leads 27.2 to 18.1.
Side by side
| Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 35.0 |
| Released | — | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1417 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1395 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |
Math Too close to call
Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1419 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads
Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140), Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1388 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1393 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1374 | — |
Long Context Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124), Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1381 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1338 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1398 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen3 14B?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen3 14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.