Model comparison

Muse Glimmer vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B

Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.7 vs 42.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Muse Glimmer Meta

41.7

Rank #131 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.1

Rank #119 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B in 7 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 44.9% for Muse Glimmer and 35.6% for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.

Side by side

Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B specifications
Muse GlimmerQwen3.5 122B-A10B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.742.1
Released2026-08-102026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.40
Output $ / M tokens—$3.20
Results tracked1527

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

Category by category

Coding Muse Glimmer leads

Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#162)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena WebDev13551360
SciCode44.9%35.6%
LMArena Coding14161436

Reasoning Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 27.2 (#123)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 122B-A10B
CritPt2.6%0.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts13961421
NYT Connections (extended)—51.7%
Thematic Generalization—51.2%
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84.3%
LMCA—32.2%

Math Too close to call

Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#112)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Math14171432

Knowledge Too close to call

Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#142)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Expert13861432
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.2%

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.6 (#57)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Vision—1245

Multilingual Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.6 (#107)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Non-English13841400
LMArena Chinese14121462
LMArena Russian13901400
LMArena French—1442
LMArena German—1426
LMArena Japanese—1367
LMArena Korean—1352
LMArena Spanish—1424

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 73.8 (#115)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Instruction Following13751399

Long Context Too close to call

Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#109)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Longer Query13821410

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.0 (#105)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Text13891417
LMArena Creative Writing13391368
LMArena Multi-Turn13991416

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.7 vs 42.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better for coding?

Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper