Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Hunyuan T1 20250711
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
TencentSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Hunyuan T1 20250711 in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 42.2.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 42.5 |
| 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 | 13 |
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: 42.4 (#101), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.9 (#129)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1390 |
| 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: 29.2 (#88), Hunyuan T1 20250711: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 28.5 (#103)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1399 |
| 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 T1 20250711 leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.7 (#130)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1414 |
| 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: 56.0 (#46), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.8 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 1395 |
| 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: 45.2 (#18), Hunyuan T1 20250711: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.2 (#112)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 1395 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1425 |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | 1406 |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | 1385 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | — |
| LMArena German | 1487 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.6 (#138)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#128)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1384 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.5 (#109)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1401 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1392 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1393 |
| 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 T1 20250711?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Hunyuan T1 20250711 better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Hunyuan T1 20250711 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13.