# Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Hunyuan T1 20250711

> Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-pro-vs-hunyuan-t1
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Hunyuan T1 20250711 in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 42.2.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Tencent |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 42.5 |
| Rank | 75 | 114 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $1.25 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.9 (#129)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1390 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 28.5 (#103)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1399 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.7 (#130)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1414 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.8 (#141)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 1395 |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.2 (#112)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 1395 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1425 |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | 1406 |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | 1385 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | — |
| LMArena German | 1487 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.6 (#138)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#128)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1384 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.5 (#109)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1401 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1392 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1393 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Hunyuan T1 20250711?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Hunyuan T1 20250711 better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Hunyuan T1 20250711 share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13.