# Gemma 2B vs Hunyuan T1 20250711

> Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-hunyuan-t1
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Hunyuan T1 20250711 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads 59.5 to 24.0.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Tencent |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 42.5 |
| Rank | 307 | 114 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.9 (#129)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1390 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 28.5 (#103)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1399 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.7 (#130)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1414 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.8 (#141)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1395 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.2 (#112)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1395 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1425 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1385 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1406 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.6 (#138)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1374 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#128)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1384 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308)
- Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.5 (#109)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1401 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1392 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1393 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2B better than Hunyuan T1 20250711?

Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2B or Hunyuan T1 20250711 better for coding?

Hunyuan T1 20250711 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Hunyuan T1 20250711 share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13.