Hy3 vs Muse Glimmer-30B
Hy3 leads the LLM Stats Score 43.2 to 35.0. Hy3 is 2.1x cheaper per token.
Tencent · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Hy3 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.2 to 35.0, ranking #40 overall.
In the 9 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Hy3 wins 8; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Hy3 is roughly 2.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Hy3 also accepts a larger context window (262,144 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Hy3
- overall performance matters — it scores 43.2 and ranks #40 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 8 of 9 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 2.1x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
Choose Muse Glimmer-30B
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
31 reported for Hy3 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B
Hy3 outperforms in 8 benchmarks (DeepSearchQA, GPQA, MCP Atlas, SkillsBench, SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.1, WildClawBench), while Muse Glimmer-30B is better at 1 benchmark (AA-LCR).
Hy3 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Hy3 ($0.14/1M tokens) is 2.1x cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B ($0.30/1M tokens).
For output processing, Hy3 ($0.58/1M tokens) is 2.1x cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Muse Glimmer-30B is more expensive than Hy3.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Hy3 has 265.4B more parameters than Muse Glimmer-30B, making it 896.6% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Hy3 accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Muse Glimmer-30B's 131,072 tokens. Hy3 can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Muse Glimmer-30B is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Muse Glimmer-30B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Hy3 does not.
Muse Glimmer-30B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Hy3
Muse Glimmer-30B
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under Apache 2.0.
Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Hy3 was released on 2026-07-06, while Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10.
Muse Glimmer-30B is 1 month newer than Hy3.
Jul 6, 2026
2 months ago
Aug 10, 2026
1 months ago
1mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while Hy3's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Muse Glimmer-30B's training data extends to 2026-01-04, but cannot make a direct comparison without Hy3's cutoff date.
—
Jan 2026
Provider Availability
Hy3 is available from DeepInfra. Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra.
Hy3
Muse Glimmer-30B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Hy3 and Muse Glimmer-30B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Hy3 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.