Model comparison
Muse Glimmer vs Qwen3.5-9B
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 46.0 to 37.9.
Side by side
| Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.5-9B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 33.3 |
| Released | — | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 10 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.3 (#213)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
| SciCode | — | 27.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1417 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.4 (#143)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 9.2% |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111), Qwen3.5-9B: 22.5 (#178)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1395 | — |
| DTBench | — | 71.2% |
| LMCA | — | 24.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.45 |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128), Qwen3.5-9B: 33.5 (#174)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 48.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1419 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads
Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#77)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 79% |
| LMArena Expert | 1388 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1393 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1374 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1381 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1338 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1398 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen3.5-9B?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 35.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.5-9B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.