# Gemma 2B vs Hunyuan Turbos 20250226

> Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-hunyuan-turbos
- 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 Turbos 20250226 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads 57.5 to 24.1.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Tencent |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 40.6 |
| Rank | 305 | 138 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300)
- Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 39.3 (#148)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1361 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275)
- Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 26.7 (#115)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1374 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 93.57 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237)
- Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 34.8 (#155)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1359 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 36.4 (#158)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1338 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289)
- Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 49.1 (#132)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1362 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1368 |
| LMArena French | — | 1390 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1338 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1351 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297)
- Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 71.2 (#153)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 971 | 1344 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286)
- Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 41.6 (#132)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1365 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303)
- Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 57.5 (#125)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1377 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 986 | 1358 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1387 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2B better than Hunyuan Turbos 20250226?

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2B or Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 better for coding?

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.3 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 has 16.