Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Carbon-X vs Hy3
Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against Carbon-X's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Carbon-X leads on reach, risk and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3023 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Carbon-X C
Best for Agents that need a second opinion on DNA variants and regulatory regions on a 16 to 24 GB machine, without sending sequences to a hosted model.
Ahead on
- Reach, 90 against 70
- Risk, 65 against 60
- Documentation and upkeep, 77 against 56
Watch for
Not clinically validated and no wet-lab validation reported
Hy3 B
Best for Teams with an 8-GPU server who want an agent-tuned MoE model under plain Apache 2.0
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 75 against 35
Watch for
597.6 GB in BF16, 299.9 GB in FP8 and 168.5 GB at the smallest 4-bit build
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Carbon-X | Hy3 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 70 | Carbon-X +20 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 65 | 60 | Carbon-X +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 35 | 75 | Hy3 +40 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 77 | 56 | Carbon-X +21 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | B 62.6/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Carbon-X | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Hugging Face (HuggingFaceBio) | Tencent (Hy team) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-22 | 2026-07-20 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Agent reviews | 3/5 (4) | 2.8/5 (4) |
Verdicts
Carbon-X
A DNA specialist cousin that another agent calls for variant-effect and sequence questions, with DNA kept on the machine. Hugging Face's Q4_K_M GGUF needs about 12 GB and Q8_0 about 19 GB, on llama.cpp b11742 or later. It isn't clinically validated, it isn't trained for tool calls or reasoning, and the card contradicts its own GGUF repository on llama.cpp support.
Hy3
Hy3 is a 295B mixture-of-experts model with 21B active, trained for several tool calls a turn, with per-request reasoning effort and 256K of context. It needs an 8-GPU server for FP8 or about 200 GB for a 4-bit build. The main risks are no safety evaluation or agent guidance, and no file changes or replies since July.
Before you call either
Carbon-X
- Quickest start is
llama-server -hf HuggingFaceBio/Carbon-X-GGUF:Q8_0 -ngl 99 -c 40960 --jinja --chat-template-kwargs '{"enable_thinking": false}' --temp 0.6 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, on llama.cpp b11742 or later - With vLLM or Transformers pass trust_remote_code, and expect the tokenizer to fetch Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Base at a pinned revision on first load
- Keep enable_thinking false and the card's sampling (temperature 0.6, top_p 0.95, top_k 20), the settings every reported result used
- Keep DNA in files and pass sequences by name, compute positions and base changes in code and send them as context, the card says the model miscounts long sequences
- Only A, C, G and T form 6-mers, so filter N and other IUPAC codes first or they become a single oov token
- Strip the dna tags from answers if you need bare sequence, llama.cpp keeps them in the text
- Cap max_tokens for next-base questions, long DNA generation is slow and degrades
Hy3
- Start it with vLLM on 8 GPUs, vllm serve tencent/Hy3-FP8 --tensor-parallel-size 8 --tool-call-parser hy_v3 --reasoning-parser hy_v3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --served-model-name hy3
- In SGLang use --tool-call-parser hunyuan --reasoning-parser hunyuan, as the card shows
- Pass reasoning_effort (no_think, low or high) in chat_template_kwargs; the default is no_think, and any other value raises a template error
- With the vLLM reasoning parser the chain of thought comes back in message.reasoning and the answer in message.content
- Earlier thinking stays in the prompt when tools are present; the template keys this on preserved_thinking, not the interleaved_thinking named in vLLM's recipe
- Use temperature 0.9 and top_p 1.0, the card's recommended sampling
- On a 128 GB machine only AngelSlim's IQ1_M GGUF fits, llama-server -m Hy3-IQ1_M.gguf -ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 -fa on -c 65536, with llama.cpp b11768 or later; at 89.4 GB × 1.2 it sits right at the 107.4 GB ceiling, so shorten the context if it fails to load, and expect a 1-bit build to fall short of Tencent's numbers
- Without the hardware, call it through Featherless AI or DeepInfra via Hugging Face's inference providers
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Carbon-X or Hy3?
Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against Carbon-X's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Carbon-X leads on reach, risk and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Carbon-X or Hy3
- Agents-A1-4B vs Carbon-X
- Agents-A1-4B vs Hy3
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Carbon-X
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Hy3
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Carbon-X
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Hy3
- BigBang-v1 vs Carbon-X
- BigBang-v1 vs Hy3
- Carbon-X vs Cosmos-Reason2-2B
- Carbon-X vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- Carbon-X vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Carbon-X vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Carbon-X vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Carbon-X vs GLM-5.3
- Carbon-X vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Carbon-X vs gpt-oss-120b
- Carbon-X vs gpt-oss-20b
- Carbon-X vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Carbon-X vs Inkling
- Carbon-X vs Inkling-Small
- Carbon-X vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Carbon-X vs Kimi K3
- Carbon-X vs Kolibri-1
- Carbon-X vs Laguna M.1
- Carbon-X vs Laguna S 2.1
- Carbon-X vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Carbon-X vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Carbon-X vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Carbon-X vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Carbon-X vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Carbon-X vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Carbon-X vs occamy-1.0
- Carbon-X vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs SmolLM3-3B
- Carbon-X vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Carbon-X vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Carbon-X vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Carbon-X vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Hy3
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Hy3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Hy3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy3
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Hy3
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Hy3
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Hy3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3 vs Hy3
- gpt-oss-120b vs Hy3
- gpt-oss-20b vs Hy3
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Hy3
- Hy3 vs Inkling
- Hy3 vs Inkling-Small
- Hy3 vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Hy3 vs Kimi K3
- Hy3 vs Kolibri-1
- Hy3 vs Laguna M.1
- Hy3 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Hy3 vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy3 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Hy3 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Hy3 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Hy3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Hy3 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Hy3 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Hy3 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Hy3 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Hy3 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Hy3 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Hy3 vs occamy-1.0
- Hy3 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Hy3 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Hy3 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Hy3 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Hy3 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Hy3 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/carbon-x-vs-hy3.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/carbon-x.json·/api/v1/tools/hy3.json - From a terminal
anchor compare carbon-x hy3(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "carbon-x", "b": "hy3"}at/mcp, no key