Noometry

Model comparison

Muse Glimmer vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Muse Glimmer Meta

41.7

Rank #131 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 38.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 2.6% for Muse Glimmer and 20% for Qwen3.8 Max.
  • Muse Glimmer has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.756.8
Released2026-08-102026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked1539

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
LMArena WebDev13551674
SciCode44.9%53.2%
LMArena Coding14161502
DeepSWE—57.5%
FrontierSWE—17.8%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
CritPt2.6%20%
LMArena Hard Prompts13961496
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
Chess Puzzles—40%
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—156.41

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Math14171499
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Expert13861507
GPQA Diamond—92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Glimmer: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English13841472
LMArena Chinese14121538
LMArena Russian13901481
LMArena French—1503
LMArena German—1483
LMArena Japanese—1467
LMArena Korean—1461
LMArena Spanish—1492

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following13751479

Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads

Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query13821489

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkMuse GlimmerQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text13891483
LMArena Creative Writing13391479
LMArena Multi-Turn13991489

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Glimmer better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Glimmer or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and Qwen3.8 Max share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper