Muse GlimmervsQwen3.6
Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | 30B | 35B |
Context window | — | 256k |
| Benchmarks | ||
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%Best | 49.5% |
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%Best | 73.4% |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 67.2% |
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. | — | 51.5% |
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% | — |
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%Best | 21.4% |
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% | 86%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% | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 953 | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 78.8%Best | 78% |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74% | 75.3%Best |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 81.7% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Apr 16 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
Which is better: Muse Glimmer or Qwen3.6?
Muse Glimmer leads Qwen3.6 on 4 of the 6 benchmarks they both report. Qwen3.6 shipped 116 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while Qwen3.6 has 35B.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Muse Glimmer leads at 51.2% vs Qwen3.6 at 49.5%. On SWE-Bench Verified, Muse Glimmer leads at 76% vs Qwen3.6 at 73.4%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Muse Glimmer leads at 22% vs Qwen3.6 at 21.4%. On GPQA Diamond, Qwen3.6 leads at 86% vs Muse Glimmer at 83.5%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Muse Glimmer leads at 78.8% vs Qwen3.6 at 78%. On MMMU-Pro, Qwen3.6 leads at 75.3% vs Muse Glimmer at 74%.
Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer was released by Meta on Aug 10 2026.
Qwen3.6 was released by Qwen on Apr 16 2026.
Muse Glimmer leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Muse Glimmer 51.2% vs Qwen3.6 49.5%.
Muse Glimmer leads on Humanity's Last Exam · no tools — Muse Glimmer 22% vs Qwen3.6 21.4%.