# Llama 13b vs Muse Glimmer

> Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-13b-vs-muse-glimmer
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 8

## Summary

- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 13b scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Glimmer in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Muse Glimmer leads 57.5 to 13.8.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 13b | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 24.4 | 41.7 |
| Rank | 348 | 131 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 13b: 21.4 (#337)
- Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 683 | 1416 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1355 |
| SciCode | — | 44.9% |

## Reasoning

- Llama 13b: 14.0 (#329)
- Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 728 | 1396 |
| CritPt | — | 2.6% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 37.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 100.58 | — |
| HellaSwag | 79.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 75.2% | — |
| PIQA | 80.1% | — |
| WinoGrande | 73% | — |

## Math

- Llama 13b: 26.7 (#256)
- Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 838 | 1417 |
| GSM8K | 20.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 13b: —
- Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1386 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 52.7% | — |
| BoolQ | 78.7% | — |
| MMLU | 47.7% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 56.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 77.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Llama 13b: —
- Muse Glimmer: —

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 13b: 16.6 (#297)
- Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 819 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1390 |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 13b: 36.7 (#305)
- Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 781 | 1375 |

## Long Context

- Llama 13b: —
- Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1382 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 13b: 13.8 (#312)
- Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 834 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 794 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 753 | 1399 |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 13b better than Muse Glimmer?

Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 13b or Muse Glimmer better for coding?

Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 21.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 13b and Muse Glimmer share?

8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 13b has 21 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.