# GLM-5.3 vs Hy3 (slim)

> GLM-5.3 scores 64.6 (B) to Hy3's 62.6 (B) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-5-3-vs-hy3.md (~5,500 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-5-3-vs-hy3.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-5-3-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)

GLM-5.3 scores 64.6 (B) on agent readiness against Hy3's 62.6 (B), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. Hy3 leads on reach, risk and agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- GLM-5.3: B 64.6, rank #17 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/glm-5-3.min.md
- Hy3: B 62.6, rank #27 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/hy3.min.md
- GLM-5.3, good for Teams with an 8-GPU server who want an open coding and long-horizon agent model with a 1M-token context, or agents that call it through Z.ai or a hosted provider Ahead on Capability, 80 against 57.
- Hy3, good for Teams with an 8-GPU server who want an agent-tuned MoE model under plain Apache 2.0 Ahead on Reach, 70 against 55; Risk, 60 against 50; Agent interface, 75 against 70.

| Category | GLM-5.3 | Hy3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | 80 | 57 |
| Reach (25%) | 55 | 70 |
| Risk (20%) | 50 | 60 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 70 | 75 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 58 | 56 |

| Fact (where they differ) | GLM-5.3 | Hy3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Z.ai (Zhipu AI) | Tencent (Hy team) |
| Licence | GLM-5.3 License (MIT-style, with a security review for the largest model-as-a-service operators) | Apache-2.0 |
| Last release | 2026-10-14 | 2026-07-20 |