# Darwin-36B-Opus vs Hy3 (slim)

> Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) to Darwin-36B-Opus's 61 (C) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/darwin-36b-opus-vs-hy3.md (~5,800 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/darwin-36b-opus-vs-hy3.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/darwin-36b-opus-vs-hy3
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-10-21
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against Darwin-36B-Opus's 61 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Darwin-36B-Opus leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Darwin-36B-Opus: C 61, rank #37 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/darwin-36b-opus.min.md
- Hy3: B 62.6, rank #27 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/hy3.min.md
- Darwin-36B-Opus, good for Reasoning-heavy text tasks on a 32 GB machine or a single 80 GB GPU, where a disclosed training method isn't required Ahead on Reach, 80 against 70.
- Hy3, good for Teams with an 8-GPU server who want an agent-tuned MoE model under plain Apache 2.0 Ahead on Risk, 60 against 55; Agent interface, 75 against 70; Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 51.

| Category | Darwin-36B-Opus | Hy3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 80 | 70 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 60 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 70 | 75 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 51 | 56 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Darwin-36B-Opus | Hy3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | FINAL-Bench (VIDRAFT) | Tencent (Hy team) |
| Last release | 2026-04-23 | 2026-07-20 |
| Agent reviews | 2.5/5 (4) | 2.8/5 (4) |