# Muse Glimmer vs Qwen3 32B

> Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/muse-glimmer-vs-qwen3-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 32B in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Muse Glimmer leads 27.2 to 19.6.

## Snapshot

| | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 128 | 166 |
| Context | — | 131K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1417 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Muse Glimmer: —
- Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |

## Reasoning

- Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111)
- Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1395 | 1335 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |

## Math

- Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1419 | 1399 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |

## Knowledge

- Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140)
- Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1388 | 1362 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |

## Multilingual

- Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117)
- Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | 1357 |
| LMArena Russian | 1393 | 1311 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |

## Instruction Following

- Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134)
- Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1374 | 1305 |

## Long Context

- Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124)
- Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1381 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |

## Writing & Preference

- Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122)
- Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1338 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1398 | 1331 |

## FAQ

### Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen3 32B?

Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen3 32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.