Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 37.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Google
TencentSummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 55.8 to 33.6.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | |
| Noometry Index | 44.9 | 37.2 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 78 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.8 (#86), Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 36.5 (#192)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1270 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.1 (#81), Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#85), Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 23.9 (#157)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1264 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |
Math Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 31.9 (#191), Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 33.0 (#179)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1274 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.8 (#41), Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 33.6 (#192)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 1248 |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 44.5 (#16), Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.5 (#30), Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 41.9 (#198)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | 1262 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1319 |
| LMArena Russian | 1460 | 1258 |
| LMArena French | 1473 | — |
| LMArena German | 1487 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1462 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.2 (#71), Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 65.8 (#214)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1245 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.7 (#5), Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 39.5 (#168)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1301 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.9 (#60), Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 47.4 (#209)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1274 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1242 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1275 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 37.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.8 versus 36.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 has 12.