# Muse Glimmer vs Qwen3.8 27B

> Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/muse-glimmer-vs-qwen3-8-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 27B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 25.7.

## Snapshot

| | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 46.0 |
| Rank | 131 | 68 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.99 |
| Output $/M | — | $1.49 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | 1593 |
| SciCode | 44.9% | 46.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1416 | 1482 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Muse Glimmer: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |

## Reasoning

- Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 2.6% | 5.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1396 | 1460 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |

## Math

- Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1417 | 1456 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |

## Knowledge

- Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1482 |

## Multimodal

- Muse Glimmer: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1271 |

## Multilingual

- Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | 1504 |
| LMArena Russian | 1390 | 1415 |
| LMArena French | — | 1465 |
| LMArena German | — | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1448 |

## Instruction Following

- Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | 1439 |

## Long Context

- Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1382 | 1450 |

## Writing & Preference

- Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | 1384 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1399 | 1441 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |

## FAQ

### Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.8 27B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.