Model comparison
Hunyuan Vision 1.5 vs Qwen3 Max
Hunyuan Vision 1.5 and Qwen3 Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.1 vs 43.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Hunyuan Vision 1.5 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 Max in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Hunyuan Vision 1.5 leads 28.9 to 22.6.
Side by side
| Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 43.7 |
| Released | — | 2025-09-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $6 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 Max leads
Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 41.8 (#119), Qwen3 Max: 43.0 (#93)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1418 | 1456 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 370.45 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Hunyuan Vision 1.5: —, Qwen3 Max: —
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 71.56 |
Reasoning Hunyuan Vision 1.5 leads
Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 28.9 (#97), Qwen3 Max: 22.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1416 | 1448 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 72.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 30.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 82.1% |
| LMCA | — | 28.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 142.38 |
Math Not comparable
Hunyuan Vision 1.5: —, Qwen3 Max: 38.7 (#131)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1446 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.1% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Hunyuan Vision 1.5: —, Qwen3 Max: 48.1 (#78)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 72.6% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 48.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1455 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 35.7 (#84), Qwen3 Max: —
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1180 | — |
Multilingual Qwen3 Max leads
Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 50.3 (#125), Qwen3 Max: 53.7 (#62)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | 1429 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1478 |
| LMArena French | — | 1449 |
| LMArena German | — | 1463 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1397 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1399 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1428 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1462 |
Instruction Following Qwen3 Max leads
Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 73.7 (#117), Qwen3 Max: 74.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1397 | 1419 |
Long Context Hunyuan Vision 1.5 leads
Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 42.9 (#115), Qwen3 Max: 41.6 (#134)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1404 | 1438 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
| CL-bench | — | 14.5% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 Max leads
Hunyuan Vision 1.5: 60.1 (#100), Qwen3 Max: 62.4 (#76)
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Vision 1.5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1405 | 1439 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1388 | 1402 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1422 | 1446 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Hunyuan Vision 1.5 better than Qwen3 Max?
Hunyuan Vision 1.5 and Qwen3 Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.1 vs 43.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Hunyuan Vision 1.5 or Qwen3 Max better for coding?
Qwen3 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Hunyuan Vision 1.5 and Qwen3 Max share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Hunyuan Vision 1.5 has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Max has 33.