Based on the benchmarks, it seems that Muse Glimmer barely edges out against Qwen3.6 27B, except for tool-calling skills (MCP, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if they released it now because they are afraid they wouldn't beat Qwen3.8 27B.

Yes, and also waiting for the next iteration of Gemma. Muse or Qwen are optimized for coding, while IMO Gemma is still better for non-coding tasks.

https://x.com/osanseviero/status/2086107547535122767

> Will be interesting to see how Qwen3.8 27B compares against this once it releases this week

Considering that Meta distills Qwen[1] (and should!), it'd be hilarious if Muse loses the head-to-head; the "distillation attack!!1!" people claimed distillation on release n-1 is enough to match the intelligence of the latest version.

1. They wrote a paper about it

It’s really interesting timing, Qwen over thinking is what kills it for me. I’m just glad we have more options in this size class now.

Makes me feel hopeful. Things felt more positive around the llama 3 era. Now it’s like a dark, dreadful race.

yes i think everyone is waiting to see that ;d, i've been on qwen for the last year and a half now.

Well, it has to, since even the MoE models can't really hold a conversation.

> Seems like dense 30B is back in fashion?

Huh, well... no? Gemma A4B and Qwen A3B are quite popular in fact. I'm sure 3.8 35B A3B will outperform 3.6 27B by all metrics

> Seems like dense 30B is back in fashion?

Surprising that Meta don't host this model, even as rate-limited free-tier.

> open weight version of Muse Spark 1.2

Wait. Is this "version" different from what Meta serves?

It seems worse than 3.6, but a bit smaller.

UPD. was wrong on smaller, it's actually much larger