Muse GlimmervsGPT-5.4
Muse Glimmer | GPT-5.4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | 30B | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 48% |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 51.2% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 76% | — |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 83% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 51.7% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 75.1% |
Software engineering Expert-SWE (Internal)OpenAI's private set of expert-level software-engineering problems. Higher is better. | — | 68.5% |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 75.5% | — |
General tool use ToolathlonTests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | — | 54.6% |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 82.7% |
Cybersecurity CyberGymTests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 22% | — |
Advanced math FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | — | 47.6% |
Advanced math FrontierMath · Tier 4Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | — | 27.1% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 83.5% | 92.8%Best |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 65.9% | 75%Best |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 953 | — |
Knowledge work GDPval (win/tie rate)How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | — | 83% |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 78.8% | — |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74% | — |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | — | 1476 |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | — | 1462 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | OpenAI |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Mar 5 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Which is better: Muse Glimmer or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 leads Muse Glimmer on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (GPQA Diamond, OSWorld-Verified). GPT-5.4 shipped 158 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer is open weight, while GPT-5.4 is proprietary.
On GPQA Diamond, GPT-5.4 leads at 92.8% vs Muse Glimmer at 83.5%. On OSWorld-Verified, GPT-5.4 leads at 75% vs Muse Glimmer at 65.9%.
Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer was released by Meta on Aug 10 2026.
GPT-5.4 was released by OpenAI on Mar 5 2026.
GPT-5.4 leads on GPQA Diamond — Muse Glimmer 83.5% vs GPT-5.4 92.8%.
Muse Glimmer is an open weight model released by Meta. GPT-5.4 is a proprietary model released by OpenAI.
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Opus 5GPT-5.4vsClaude Opus 5Muse GlimmervsGemini 3.6 FlashGPT-5.4vsGemini 3.6 FlashMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.5GPT-5.4vsGrok 4.5Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731GPT-5.4vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Muse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-5.4vsMistral Medium 3.5Muse GlimmervsKimi K3GPT-5.4vsKimi K3