Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 2870 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Hy3 B
Best for Teams with an 8-GPU server who want an agent-tuned MoE model under plain Apache 2.0
Ahead on
- Capability, 57 against 13
- Risk, 60 against 50
Watch for
597.6 GB in BF16, 299.9 GB in FP8 and 168.5 GB at the smallest 4-bit build
Best for Agents that want a small local helper for tool calls, extraction and RAG on a laptop, phone or CPU, at organisations under the licence's revenue threshold
Ahead on
- Reach, 95 against 70
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Hy3 | LFM2.5-2.6B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 57 | 13 | Hy3 +44 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 70 | 95 | LFM2.5-2.6B +25 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 60 | 50 | Hy3 +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 75 | even |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 57 | LFM2.5-2.6B +1 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 62.6/100 | D 51.5/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Hy3 | LFM2.5-2.6B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Tencent (Hy team) | Liquid AI |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-07-20 | 2026-09-22 |
| 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 | 2.8/5 (4) | 2.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
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.
LFM2.5-2.6B
A small, fast cousin for tool calls, extraction and long-context steps on a laptop or phone. Liquid's own 4-bit build is 1.6 GB, and every common runtime runs it. It always thinks, isn't meant for coding or knowledge-heavy work, and organisations over $10M of revenue need another licence. There are no safety results or security contact.
Before you call either
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
LFM2.5-2.6B
- Quickest start is
ollama run LiquidAI/lfm2.5-2.6b, 1.7 GB, orllama-cli -hf LiquidAI/LFM2.5-2.6B-GGUF - With vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser lfm2; for vLLM add--reasoning-parser qwen3so the thinking comes back separately - Sample at temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition_penalty 1.1, as the card and generation_config.json set
- Put tools in the system prompt as
List of tools: [...]JSON, or pass tools to apply_chat_template; calls come back as a Python list of function calls, and the system prompt can ask for JSON calls instead - Leave max_tokens unset or generous, since a low cap cuts the reasoning off mid-thought
- Earlier thinking is dropped from the prompt unless
preserve_thinkingis true - Liquid's 328M LFM2.5-2.6B-DSpark drafter speeds decoding about 2.6 times in SGLang and on Apple silicon, per Liquid
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Hy3 or LFM2.5-2.6B?
Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach.
Other comparisons with Hy3 or LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Hy3
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Hy3
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Hy3
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Hy3
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Hy3
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Hy3
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Hy3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Hy3
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Hy3
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Hy3
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Hy3
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Hy3
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Hy3
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- 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 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 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)
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs occamy-1.0
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/hy3-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/hy3.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm2-5-2-6b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare hy3 lfm2-5-2-6b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "hy3", "b": "lfm2-5-2-6b"}at/mcp, no key