Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Google
TencentSummary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads 57.4 to 24.0.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 41.3 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 40.0 (#152)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1361 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 27.8 (#113)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1374 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 37.5 (#154)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1359 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 37.0 (#161)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1339 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 48.9 (#136)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1363 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1368 |
| LMArena French | — | 1391 |
| LMArena German | — | 1355 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1342 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1351 |
Instruction Following Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 71.0 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1344 |
Long Context Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 41.6 (#136)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1366 |
Writing & Preference Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 57.4 (#128)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1377 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1359 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1387 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Hunyuan Turbos 20250226?
Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 better for coding?
Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 has 16.