Model comparison

Hunyuan T1 20250711 vs Llama 3.2 3B

Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Hunyuan T1 20250711 Tencent

42.5

Rank #114 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 3B Meta

28.9

Rank #321 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.2 3B 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 24.7.
  • Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Hunyuan T1 20250711 and Llama 3.2 3B specifications
Hunyuan T1 20250711Llama 3.2 3B
ProviderTencentMeta
Noometry Index42.528.9
Released—2024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—118K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.05
Output $ / M tokens—$0.33
Results tracked1318

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 3B: 27.6 (#319)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkHunyuan T1 20250711Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Coding13901098
BigCodeBench Instruct—23.4%
BigCodeBench Complete—28.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Hunyuan T1 20250711: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkHunyuan T1 20250711Llama 3.2 3B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—21.9%
BALROG—10.1%

Reasoning Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads

Hunyuan T1 20250711: 28.5 (#103), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkHunyuan T1 20250711Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Hard Prompts13991095

Math Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads

Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.7 (#130), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkHunyuan T1 20250711Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Math14141126

Knowledge Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads

Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.8 (#141), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkHunyuan T1 20250711Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Expert13951090

Multilingual Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads

Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.2 (#112), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkHunyuan T1 20250711Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Non-English13951019
LMArena Chinese14251017
LMArena Russian1385949
LMArena German—1056
LMArena Korean1406—

Instruction Following Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads

Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.6 (#138), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkHunyuan T1 20250711Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Instruction Following13741089

Long Context Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads

Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#128), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkHunyuan T1 20250711Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Longer Query13841100

Writing & Preference Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads

Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.5 (#109), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkHunyuan T1 20250711Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Text14011110
LMArena Creative Writing13921094
LMArena Multi-Turn13931105
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—595

Frequently asked questions

Is Hunyuan T1 20250711 better than Llama 3.2 3B?

Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Hunyuan T1 20250711 or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?

Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Hunyuan T1 20250711 and Llama 3.2 3B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper