Model comparison
Hunyuan T1 20250711 vs Qwen3 32B
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Tencent
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 32B in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads 27.3 to 19.6.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.8 | 38.8 |
| Released | — | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.2 (#129), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1389 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Hunyuan T1 20250711: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 27.3 (#106), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1335 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 36.0 (#132), Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1414 | 1399 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.1 (#139), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1395 | 1362 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
Multilingual Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.4 (#107), Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1395 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1424 | 1357 |
| LMArena Russian | 1384 | 1311 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
| LMArena Korean | 1403 | — |
Instruction Following Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.8 (#130), Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | 1305 |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#123), Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1384 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
Writing & Preference Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.7 (#105), Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1401 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Hunyuan T1 20250711 better than Qwen3 32B?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Hunyuan T1 20250711 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Hunyuan T1 20250711 and Qwen3 32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.