Model comparison

Muse Glimmer vs Qwen3.5 27B

Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.3 vs 41.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Muse Glimmer Meta

41.3

Rank #128 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.4

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 5 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.

Side by side

Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5 27B specifications
Muse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.341.4
Released—2026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked1328

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.6 (#159)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
LMArena WebDev13551357
LMArena Coding14171427
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Too close to call

Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111), Qwen3.5 27B: 26.6 (#116)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts13951414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math Too close to call

Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128), Qwen3.5 27B: 36.8 (#103)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math14191428
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%

Knowledge Too close to call

Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140), Qwen3.5 27B: 37.4 (#149)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert13881428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 38.7 (#56)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1240

Multilingual Too close to call

Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117), Qwen3.5 27B: 51.0 (#112)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English13841390
LMArena Chinese14121478
LMArena Russian13931389
LMArena French—1409
LMArena German—1393
LMArena Japanese—1345
LMArena Korean—1359
LMArena Spanish—1408

Instruction Following Too close to call

Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.7 (#114)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13741393

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#103)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query13811413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.5 (#106)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text13891409
LMArena Creative Writing13381362
LMArena Multi-Turn13981410

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.3 vs 41.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (38.7 vs 38.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.

How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5 27B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper