Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Hunyuan Vision 1.5
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Google
TencentSummary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Hunyuan Vision 1.5 in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 42.9.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 43.1 |
| 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 | 9 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 41.8 (#119)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1418 |
| 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 Vision 1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Vision 1.5: 28.9 (#97)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1416 |
| 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 Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1450 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | — |
Multimodal Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 35.7 (#84)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | 1180 |
| 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 Vision 1.5: 50.3 (#125)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 1382 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1472 | — |
| LMArena German | 1487 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 73.7 (#117)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1397 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 42.9 (#115)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1404 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 60.1 (#100)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1405 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1388 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1422 |
| 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 Vision 1.5?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Hunyuan Vision 1.5 better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (42.4 vs 41.8); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Hunyuan Vision 1.5 share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan Vision 1.5 has 9.