Model comparison
Muse Glimmer vs QwQ-32B
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Glimmer scores higher in 5 categories and QwQ-32B in 3 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 42.1.
Side by side
| Muse Glimmer | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 39.4 |
| Released | — | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 38.7 (#157), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1417 | 1333 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1355 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
Reasoning Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 27.2 (#111), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1395 | 1326 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Too close to call
Muse Glimmer: 36.1 (#128), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1419 | 1359 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge Too close to call
Muse Glimmer: 37.9 (#140), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1388 | 1323 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multilingual Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 50.6 (#117), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1384 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1412 | 1378 |
| LMArena Russian | 1393 | 1297 |
| LMArena French | — | 1337 |
| LMArena German | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1278 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1353 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Muse Glimmer: 72.7 (#134), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1374 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#124), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1381 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference Muse Glimmer leads
Muse Glimmer: 57.7 (#122), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1338 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1398 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer better than QwQ-32B?
Muse Glimmer is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Muse Glimmer or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Muse Glimmer scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Muse Glimmer and QwQ-32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Glimmer has 13 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.