Model comparison
Gemma 2 9B vs Hunyuan T1 20250711
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
TencentSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and Hunyuan T1 20250711 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads 38.8 to 9.7.
- Gemma 2 9B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 9B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.9 (#129)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1173 | 1390 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |
Reasoning Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 28.5 (#103)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1171 | 1399 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.83 | — |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |
Math Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.7 (#130)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1414 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |
Knowledge Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.8 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1395 |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |
Multilingual Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.2 (#112)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1395 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1425 |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | 1406 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1385 |
| LMArena French | 1190 | — |
| LMArena German | 1186 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | — |
Instruction Following Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.6 (#138)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |
Long Context Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#128)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1384 |
Writing & Preference Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.5 (#109)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1401 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1392 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 9B better than Hunyuan T1 20250711?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 9B or Hunyuan T1 20250711 better for coding?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Hunyuan T1 20250711 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13.