Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Hunyuan T1 20250711
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.8 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Google
TencentSummary
- The widest gap is in long context, where Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads 42.2 to 29.1.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 41.8 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.2 (#129)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1389 |
Reasoning Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 27.3 (#106)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1399 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 36.0 (#132)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1414 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.1 (#139)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1395 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1395 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1424 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1403 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1384 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1375 |
Long Context Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1384 |
Writing & Preference Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.7 (#105)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1401 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1391 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1393 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Hunyuan T1 20250711?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.8 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Hunyuan T1 20250711 better for coding?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Hunyuan T1 20250711 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13.