Model comparison

Muse Glimmer vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Muse Glimmer Meta

41.7

Rank #131 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #67 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads 53.3 to 38.5.

Side by side

Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B specifications
Muse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.746.0
Released2026-08-102026-02-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$3.60
Results tracked1536

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 42.0 (#114)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena WebDev13551400
LMArena Coding14161465
SciCode44.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.3 (#53)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
APEX-Agents—24.9%
τ²-bench Airline—81.5%
τ²-bench Banking—9.8%
τ²-bench Retail—84.4%
τ²-bench Telecom—97.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 34.5 (#70)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Hard Prompts13961448
Kagi LLM Benchmark—73.7%
NYT Connections (extended)—58.9%
CritPt2.6%—
Chess Puzzles—13%
Thematic Generalization—65.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
DTBench—87.5%
LMCA—37.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.65

Math Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 46.1 (#73)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Math14171454
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—31.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—88.9%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#58)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Expert13861462
GPQA Diamond—86.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.7 (#44)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Vision—1263

Multilingual Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.7 (#59)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Non-English13841430
LMArena Chinese14121500
LMArena Russian13901429
LMArena French—1461
LMArena German—1447
LMArena Japanese—1426
LMArena Korean—1384
LMArena Spanish—1441

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.0 (#77)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Instruction Following13751424

Long Context Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#74)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Longer Query13821442

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.3 (#79)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Text13891438
LMArena Creative Writing13391401
LMArena Multi-Turn13991446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1478

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.0 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper