# Muse Glimmer vs Qwen1.5-72B

> Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/muse-glimmer-vs-qwen1-5-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Muse Glimmer leads 38.5 to 11.5.

## Snapshot

| | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 131 | 285 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1416 | 1165 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
| SciCode | 44.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |

## Reasoning

- Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1396 | 1148 |
| CritPt | 2.6% | — |

## Math

- Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1417 | 1164 |

## Knowledge

- Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |

## Multilingual

- Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | 1186 |
| LMArena Russian | 1390 | 1104 |
| LMArena French | — | 1159 |
| LMArena German | — | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1050 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1110 |

## Instruction Following

- Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | 1141 |

## Long Context

- Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1382 | 1157 |

## Writing & Preference

- Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1399 | 1160 |

## FAQ

### Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen1.5-72B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.