Muse GlimmervsQwen3.8-27B
Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8-27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | 30B | 27B |
Context window | — | 262k |
| 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% | 61.7%Best |
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% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 42.2% |
Repo-level code generation NL2Repo-BenchTests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 42.3% |
Software engineering QwenSWEBenchQwen's in-house coding benchmark for evaluating a model's ability to complete software-engineering work. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Competitive coding LiveCodeBenchCoding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 90.3% |
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% | 73%Best |
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% | — |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 33.4% |
Long-horizon office work CoWorkBenchTests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 70.7% |
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% | 30.8%Best |
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% | 89.2%Best |
Instruction following IFBenchTests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 79.5% |
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% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · pass@1A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 20.4% |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · scoreThe graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | — | 42.9% |
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% | — |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
Which is better: Muse Glimmer or Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B leads Muse Glimmer on 4 of the 4 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Humanity's Last Exam, GPQA Diamond). Muse Glimmer shipped 4 days before Qwen3.8-27B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while Qwen3.8-27B has 27B.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Qwen3.8-27B leads at 61.7% vs Muse Glimmer at 51.2%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Qwen3.8-27B leads at 73% vs Muse Glimmer at 51.7%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Qwen3.8-27B leads at 30.8% vs Muse Glimmer at 22%. On GPQA Diamond, Qwen3.8-27B leads at 89.2% vs Muse Glimmer at 83.5%.
Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer was released by Meta on Aug 10 2026.
Qwen3.8-27B was released by Qwen on Aug 14 2026.
Qwen3.8-27B leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Muse Glimmer 51.2% vs Qwen3.8-27B 61.7%.
Qwen3.8-27B leads on Humanity's Last Exam · no tools — Muse Glimmer 22% vs Qwen3.8-27B 30.8%.
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-27BvsClaude Opus 5Muse GlimmervsGPT-5.6-CyberQwen3.8-27BvsGPT-5.6-CyberMuse GlimmervsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-27BvsGemini 3.7 FlashMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-27BvsGrok 4.6Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-27BvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-27BvsMistral Medium 3.5