# Llama 3.2 1B vs Muse Glimmer

> Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-2-1b-vs-muse-glimmer
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B 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 57.7 to 21.4.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 19.9 | 41.3 |
| Rank | 349 | 128 |
| Context | 60K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.027 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333)
- Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1071 | 1417 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1355 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142)
- Muse Glimmer: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304)
- Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | 1395 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.95 | — |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308)
- Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1086 | 1419 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307)
- Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | 1388 |
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287)
- Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1384 |
| LMArena Chinese | 958 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | 1393 |
| LMArena German | 1014 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285)
- Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | 1374 |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269)
- Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | 1381 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305)
- Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Glimmer |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | 1389 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1338 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | 1398 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Muse Glimmer?

Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 3.2 1B or Muse Glimmer better for coding?

Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Muse Glimmer share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 13.