Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Hunyuan T1 20250711
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
TencentSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Hunyuan T1 20250711 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads 38.7 to 10.7.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 8K | — |
| Max output | 2K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Results tracked | 34 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.9 (#129)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1390 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Reasoning Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 28.5 (#103)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1399 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.7 (#130)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1414 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.8 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1395 |
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.2 (#112)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1395 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1425 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1406 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1385 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.6 (#138)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#128)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1384 |
Writing & Preference Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.5 (#109)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1401 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1392 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1393 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Hunyuan T1 20250711?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Hunyuan T1 20250711 better for coding?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Hunyuan T1 20250711 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13.