Noometry

Model comparison

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 vs Llama 3.1-70B

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 Tencent

41.3

Rank #139 Confirmed

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.6

Rank #308 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.1-70B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads 37.5 to 13.5.
  • Llama 3.1-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226Llama 3.1-70B
ProviderTencentMeta
Noometry Index41.329.6
Released—2024-07-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—128K
Max output—4K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.40
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked1635

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 40.0 (#152), Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296)

BenchmarkHunyuan Turbos 20250226Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Coding13611260
WeirdML—9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—46.1%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.8%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112)

BenchmarkHunyuan Turbos 20250226Llama 3.1-70B
TheAgentCompany—6.9%
BALROG—27.9%

Reasoning Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 27.8 (#113), Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220)

BenchmarkHunyuan Turbos 20250226Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Hard Prompts13741241
DTBench—60%
LMCA—14.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—125.92

Math Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 37.5 (#154), Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304)

BenchmarkHunyuan Turbos 20250226Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Math13591252
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—3.6%
Omni-MATH—21%
MATH Level 5—36.7%

Knowledge Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 37.0 (#161), Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269)

BenchmarkHunyuan Turbos 20250226Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Expert13391209
GPQA Diamond—44.2%
MMLU-Pro—65.3%
GPQA (HELM)—42.6%
MMLU—80.1%

Multilingual Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 48.9 (#136), Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225)

BenchmarkHunyuan Turbos 20250226Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Non-English13631219
LMArena Chinese14171215
LMArena French13911261
LMArena German13551222
LMArena Japanese13421132
LMArena Korean13511140
LMArena Russian13681234
LMArena Spanish—1253

Instruction Following Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 71.0 (#158), Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223)

BenchmarkHunyuan Turbos 20250226Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Instruction Following13441231
IFEval—82.1%

Long Context Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 41.6 (#136), Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214)

BenchmarkHunyuan Turbos 20250226Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Longer Query13661241

Writing & Preference Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 57.4 (#128), Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267)

BenchmarkHunyuan Turbos 20250226Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Text13771261
LMArena Creative Writing13591232
LMArena Multi-Turn13871256
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—784
WildBench—75.8%

Frequently asked questions

Is Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 better than Llama 3.1-70B?

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 or Llama 3.1-70B better for coding?

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 and Llama 3.1-70B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 has 16 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-70B has 35.

Related comparisons

Go deeper