# Llama 2-70B vs Muse Glimmer

> Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-2-70b-vs-muse-glimmer
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Glimmer in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Muse Glimmer leads 37.9 to 7.4.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 24.1 | 41.3 |
| Rank | 343 | 128 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 2-70B: 30.8 (#281)
- Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1079 | 1417 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1355 |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-70B: 13.7 (#324)
- Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1073 | 1395 |
| DTBench | 41.6% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 64.9% | — |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | 50% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.59 | — |
| ForecastBench | 51.4 | — |
| HellaSwag | 85.3% | — |
| LAMBADA | 78.9% | — |
| PIQA | 82.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-70B: 7.5 (#320)
- Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1091 | 1419 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 3.3% | — |
| GSM8K | 69.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#305)
- Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1039 | 1388 |
| GPQA Diamond | 26.3% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 78.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.6% | — |
| MMLU | 69.9% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 60.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 87.6% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-70B: 27.9 (#269)
- Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1045 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 994 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 1083 | 1393 |
| LMArena French | 1089 | — |
| LMArena German | 1041 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 927 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 964 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1142 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-70B: 55.1 (#273)
- Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1071 | 1374 |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-70B: 32.2 (#265)
- Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1062 | 1381 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-70B: 32.5 (#274)
- Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1115 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1075 | 1338 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1088 | 1398 |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 2-70B better than Muse Glimmer?

Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 2-70B or Muse Glimmer better for coding?

Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 30.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Muse Glimmer share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 13.