Model comparison
Hunyuan T1 20250711 vs Llama 3.2 1B
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Tencent
MetaSummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads 59.5 to 21.3.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 42.5 | 20.1 |
| Released | — | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 60K |
| Max output | — | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.9 (#129), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Hunyuan T1 20250711: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
Reasoning Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 28.5 (#103), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1044 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 101.99 |
Math Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.7 (#130), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1414 | 1086 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0.6% |
Knowledge Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.8 (#141), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1395 | 1007 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 23.9% |
Multilingual Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.2 (#112), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1395 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 959 |
| LMArena Russian | 1385 | 941 |
| LMArena German | — | 1014 |
| LMArena Korean | 1406 | — |
Instruction Following Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.6 (#138), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1374 | 1031 |
Long Context Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#128), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1384 | 1050 |
Writing & Preference Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.5 (#109), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1401 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1392 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | 1030 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Hunyuan T1 20250711 better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Hunyuan T1 20250711 or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Hunyuan T1 20250711 and Llama 3.2 1B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.