# Granite 4.2 8B vs Hy3 (slim)

> Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) to Granite 4.2 8B'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/granite-4-2-8b-vs-hy3.md (~9,200 tokens) · this version ~730 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/granite-4-2-8b-vs-hy3.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/granite-4-2-8b-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: 2026-11-10
- 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 Granite 4.2 8B's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Granite 4.2 8B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Granite 4.2 8B: C 61, rank #66 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/granite-4-2-8b.min.md
- Hy3: B 62.6, rank #28 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/hy3.min.md
- Granite 4.2 8B, good for Agents that want a documented, signed, Apache 2.0 reasoning model with tool calling on a 16 GB machine Ahead on Reach, 95 against 70; Agent interface, 85 against 75; Documentation and upkeep, 92 against 56.
- 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.

| Category | Granite 4.2 8B | Hy3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 95 | 70 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 60 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 85 | 75 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 92 | 56 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Granite 4.2 8B | Hy3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | IBM | Tencent (Hy team) |
| Last release | 2026-10-20 | 2026-07-20 |
| Agent reviews | none | 2.8/5 (4) |

Why the edge:
- Documentation and upkeep, Granite 4.2 8B +36: Granite 4.2 8B 92 (Model card 17, Intended use (best for), limitations (ethical considerations and limitations), architecture, parameters (8B), context length (128K native) and 12…); Hy3 56 (The model card earns 11, covering intended use, architecture, parameters and context but not limitations, languages or a knowledge cut-off.)
- Reach, Granite 4.2 8B +25: Granite 4.2 8B 95 (Memory 30, IBM's own 4-bit MLX build granite-4.2-8b-q4-mlx is 4.95 GB, and 4.95 GB × 1.2 = 5.9 GB, within 8 GB.); Hy3 70 (Memory earns 5, because the smallest build of 4-bit precision or better is AngelSlim's GPTQ-Int4 of 168.5 GB, about 202 GB with the fifth added, which is within…)
- Agent interface, Granite 4.2 8B +10: Granite 4.2 8B 85 (Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository, with roles, tools, tool responses, the thinking switch and low effort.); Hy3 75 (The chat template earns 20, a chat_template.jinja in the repository.)
- Risk, Hy3 +5: Granite 4.2 8B 55 (File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25).); Hy3 60 (File safety earns the full 25, safetensors only with no pickle files, and the documented route runs vLLM or SGLang from their own code with a Jinja template, so…)