# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy3 (slim)

> GLM-4.7-Flash and Hy3 score within a point of each other for open-weight models you run yourself, 63 and 62.6 out of 100. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-hy3.md (~5,700 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-hy3.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-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: 2026-10-22
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

GLM-4.7-Flash and Hy3 score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 63 (B) and 62.6 (B). Hy3 leads on risk and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- GLM-4.7-Flash: B 63, rank #26 of 102 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/glm-4-7-flash.min.md
- Hy3: B 62.6, rank #27 of 102 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/hy3.min.md
- GLM-4.7-Flash, good for Agents and developers who want a small, permissively licensed tool-calling model on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac, in almost any runtime Ahead on Reach, 80 against 70; Agent interface, 85 against 75.
- 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; Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 28.

| Category | GLM-4.7-Flash | Hy3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | 59 | 57 |
| Reach (25%) | 80 | 70 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 60 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 85 | 75 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 28 | 56 |

| Fact (where they differ) | GLM-4.7-Flash | Hy3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Z.ai (Zhipu AI) | Tencent (Hy team) |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Last release | 2026-01-29 | 2026-07-20 |