Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Hunyuan Vision 1.5
Hunyuan Vision 1.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Google
TencentSummary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Hunyuan Vision 1.5 in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Hunyuan Vision 1.5 leads 60.1 to 44.2.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 43.1 |
| 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 | 9 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Hunyuan Vision 1.5 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 41.8 (#119)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1418 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Reasoning Hunyuan Vision 1.5 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 28.9 (#97)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1416 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 35.7 (#84)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1180 |
Multilingual Hunyuan Vision 1.5 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 50.3 (#125)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1382 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | — |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Hunyuan Vision 1.5 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 73.7 (#117)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1397 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Hunyuan Vision 1.5 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 42.9 (#115)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1404 |
Writing & Preference Hunyuan Vision 1.5 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 60.1 (#100)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1405 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1388 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1422 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Hunyuan Vision 1.5?
Hunyuan Vision 1.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Hunyuan Vision 1.5 better for coding?
Hunyuan Vision 1.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Hunyuan Vision 1.5 share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan Vision 1.5 has 9.