Model comparison
Muse Glimmer vs Qwen3 32B
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 32B in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Muse Glimmer leads 25.7 to 20.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 44.9% for Muse Glimmer and 35.4% for Qwen3 32B.
Side by side
| Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 39.2 |
| Released | 2026-08-10 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 44.9% | 35.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1416 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 2.6% | 0.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1396 | 1334 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |
Math Too close to call
Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1417 | 1399 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1362 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | 1357 |
| LMArena Russian | 1390 | 1311 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
Instruction Following Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | 1305 |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1382 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1399 | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen3 32B?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen3 32B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.