Model comparison

GPT-5.1 vs Muse Glimmer

GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.1 OpenAI

48.8

Rank #47 Confirmed

Muse Glimmer Meta

41.3

Rank #128 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Muse Glimmer in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.1 leads 50.3 to 36.1.
  • Muse Glimmer has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.1 and Muse Glimmer specifications
GPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
ProviderOpenAIMeta
Noometry Index48.841.3
Released2025-11-13—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window400K—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$10—
Results tracked6313

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

Category by category

Coding GPT-5.1 leads

GPT-5.1: 46.9 (#59), Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena WebDev13951355
LMArena Coding14541417
SWE-bench Verified68%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)66%—
SciCode43.3%—
GSO13.7%—
WeirdML60.8%—
LiveBench Coding72.5%—
ALE-Bench1,192—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-5.1: 32.5 (#55), Muse Glimmer: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
Terminal-Bench47.6%—
DeepResearch Bench42.8%—
LMArena Search1199—
Vending-Bench 21,473—

Reasoning GPT-5.1 leads

GPT-5.1: 39.9 (#50), Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Hard Prompts14571395
ARC-AGI-217.6%—
SimpleBench53.2%—
ARC-AGI-172.8%—
CritPt4.9%—
Chess Puzzles32%—
EnigmaEval11.2%—
LiveBench Reasoning95.8%—
Mystery Game Puzzles19%—
DTBench90.1%—
LiveBench Data Analysis72.1%—
LMCA43.9%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.66—
ForecastBench58.1—
LiveBench78.8%—

Math GPT-5.1 leads

GPT-5.1: 50.3 (#45), Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Math14461419
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202588.6%—
Omni-MATH46.4%—
LiveBench Math94.5%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)31%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)12.5%—

Knowledge GPT-5.1 leads

GPT-5.1: 50.5 (#65), Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Expert14701388
GPQA Diamond87.6%—
Humanity's Last Exam23.7%—
SimpleQA Verified48%—
MMLU-Pro57.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—
GPQA (HELM)44.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-5.1: 44.0 (#17), Muse Glimmer: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Vision1250—
VPCT58.7%—
LMArena Document1403—

Multilingual GPT-5.1 leads

GPT-5.1: 54.0 (#51), Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Non-English14311384
LMArena Chinese14951412
LMArena Russian14351393
LMArena French1451—
LMArena German1439—
LMArena Japanese1453—
LMArena Korean1401—
LMArena Spanish1430—

Instruction Following GPT-5.1 leads

GPT-5.1: 84.0 (#1), Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Instruction Following14421374
LiveBench Instruction Following93.3%—
IFEval93.5%—

Long Context GPT-5.1 leads

GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Longer Query14481381
CL-bench23.7%—
CL-bench Life17.3%—

Writing & Preference GPT-5.1 leads

GPT-5.1: 64.7 (#53), Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Text14431389
LMArena Creative Writing14271338
LMArena Multi-Turn14491398
WildBench86.3%—
LiveBench Language80.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.1 better than Muse Glimmer?

GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-5.1 or Muse Glimmer better for coding?

GPT-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.9 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1 and Muse Glimmer share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1 has 63 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper