Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs Hunyuan T1 20250711
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
TencentSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 1 category and Hunyuan T1 20250711 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads 28.5 to 15.2.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | |
| Noometry Index | 35.1 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 54 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.4 (#315), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.9 (#129)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1350 | 1390 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 25.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.1 (#92), Hunyuan T1 20250711: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
Reasoning Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#318), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 28.5 (#103)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | 1399 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | — |
| DTBench | 63.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | — |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 37.9 (#146), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.7 (#130)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1352 | 1414 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#213), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.8 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1339 | 1395 |
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| MMLU | 79.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.5 (#79), Hunyuan T1 20250711: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |
Multilingual Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.4 (#149), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.2 (#112)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | 1395 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | 1425 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1406 |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | 1385 |
| LMArena French | 1391 | — |
| LMArena German | 1353 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1294 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.4 (#97), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.6 (#138)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | — |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |
Long Context Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#203), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#128)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1344 | 1384 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.5 (#190), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.5 (#109)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1401 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | 1392 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1393 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | — |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than Hunyuan T1 20250711?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or Hunyuan T1 20250711 better for coding?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 28.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and Hunyuan T1 20250711 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13.