Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp vs Muse Glimmer

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp DeepSeek

44.9

Rank #68 Confirmed

Muse Glimmer Meta

41.3

Rank #128 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp scores higher in 7 categories and Muse Glimmer in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads 51.6 to 37.9.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and Muse Glimmer specifications
DeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Glimmer
ProviderDeepSeekMeta
Noometry Index44.941.3
Released2025-09-29—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window164K—
Max output66K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.26—
Output $ / M tokens$0.38—
Results tracked4813

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 46.4 (#61), Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Glimmer
LMArena WebDev13621355
LMArena Coding14541417
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)70%—
Aider Polyglot74.2%—
SWE-bench Multilingual59%—
SciCode38.9%—
WeirdML39.5%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 37.9 (#31), Muse Glimmer: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Glimmer
Terminal-Bench39.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard56.7%—
TheAgentCompany42.9%—
Vending-Bench 21,034—

Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 22.0 (#185), Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Glimmer
LMArena Hard Prompts14331395
ARC-AGI-24%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark52.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)36.7%—
ARC-AGI-157%—
CritPt2.9%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Thematic Generalization65%—
DTBench87.7%—
LMCA29.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index146.28—

Math DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 40.8 (#75), Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Glimmer
LMArena Math14351419
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions57.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202587.8%—
ProofBench8%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)22.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 51.6 (#61), Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Glimmer
LMArena Expert14361388
GPQA Diamond83.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.3%—

Multilingual DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 52.4 (#85), Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Glimmer
LMArena Non-English14091384
LMArena Chinese14611412
LMArena Russian14231393
LMArena French1435—
LMArena German1440—
LMArena Japanese1377—
LMArena Korean1372—
LMArena Spanish1441—

Instruction Following DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 74.7 (#89), Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Glimmer
LMArena Instruction Following14131374

Long Context DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 47.6 (#15), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Glimmer
LMArena Longer Query14281381
Fiction.LiveBench83.3%—
CL-bench13.2%—
CL-bench Life9.5%—

Writing & Preference DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 62.5 (#73), Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Glimmer
LMArena Text14251389
LMArena Creative Writing14031338
LMArena Multi-Turn14271398
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1515—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp better than Muse Glimmer?

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp or Muse Glimmer better for coding?

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.4 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and Muse Glimmer share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp has 48 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper