Model comparison
Muse Glimmer vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 27B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 25.7.
Side by side
| Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 46.0 |
| Released | 2026-08-10 | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.99 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | 1593 |
| SciCode | 44.9% | 46.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1416 | 1482 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 2.6% | 5.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1396 | 1460 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |
Math Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1417 | 1456 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1482 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1271 |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads
Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | 1504 |
| LMArena Russian | 1390 | 1415 |
| LMArena French | — | 1465 |
| LMArena German | — | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1448 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads
Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | 1439 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads
Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1382 | 1450 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads
Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | 1384 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1399 | 1441 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.8 27B share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.