Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Hunyuan Turbos 20250226

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 Tencent

41.3

Rank #139 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads 37.5 to 10.7.
  • Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BHunyuan Turbos 20250226
ProviderGoogleTencent
Noometry Index29.441.3
Released2024-06-24—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window8K—
Max output2K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.65—
Output $ / M tokens$0.65—
Results tracked3416

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 40.0 (#152)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BHunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Coding12111361
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—

Reasoning Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 27.8 (#113)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BHunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Hard Prompts11981374
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
DTBench48%—
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LMCA7.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index122.08—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 37.5 (#154)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BHunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Math12121359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%—
LiveBench Math26.5%—
MATH Level 527.9%—

Knowledge Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 37.0 (#161)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BHunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Expert11721339
GPQA Diamond36.5%—
Confabulations27.1%—
MMLU75.7%—

Multilingual Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 48.9 (#136)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BHunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Non-English12171363
LMArena Chinese12211417
LMArena French12471391
LMArena German12091355
LMArena Japanese11751342
LMArena Korean11741351
LMArena Russian12341368
LMArena Spanish1228—

Instruction Following Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 71.0 (#158)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BHunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Instruction Following12061344
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—

Long Context Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 41.6 (#136)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BHunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Longer Query12311366

Writing & Preference Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 57.4 (#128)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BHunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Text12311377
LMArena Creative Writing12411359
LMArena Multi-Turn12241387
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Hunyuan Turbos 20250226?

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 2 27B or Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 better for coding?

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper