# Llama 2-7B vs Muse Glimmer

> Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-2-7b-vs-muse-glimmer
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Glimmer in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Muse Glimmer leads 57.5 to 28.0.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-7B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 41.7 |
| Rank | 317 | 131 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)
- Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1002 | 1416 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1355 |
| SciCode | — | 44.9% |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)
- Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1009 | 1396 |
| CritPt | — | 2.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 39.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 99.06 | — |
| HellaSwag | 77.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 73.3% | — |
| PIQA | 78.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 69.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)
- Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1042 | 1417 |
| GSM8K | 16.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)
- Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1036 | 1386 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 45.9% | — |
| BoolQ | 77.9% | — |
| MMLU | 45.8% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 58.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- Llama 2-7B: —
- Muse Glimmer: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)
- Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 973 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 995 | 1390 |
| LMArena French | 970 | — |
| LMArena German | 978 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1007 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)
- Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1006 | 1375 |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)
- Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 999 | 1382 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)
- Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1053 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1029 | 1399 |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 2-7B better than Muse Glimmer?

Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 2-7B or Muse Glimmer better for coding?

Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Muse Glimmer share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.