# Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B (slim)

> Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) to LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/hy3-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b.md (~5,650 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/hy3-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/hy3-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b
- 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 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.

- Hy3: B 62.6, rank #27 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/hy3.min.md
- LFM2.5-2.6B: D 51.5, rank #89 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/lfm2-5-2-6b.min.md
- Hy3, good 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.
- LFM2.5-2.6B, good 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.

| Category | Hy3 | LFM2.5-2.6B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | 57 | 13 |
| Reach (25%) | 70 | 95 |
| Risk (20%) | 60 | 50 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 75 | 75 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 56 | 57 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Hy3 | LFM2.5-2.6B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Tencent (Hy team) | Liquid AI |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-07-20 | 2026-09-22 |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | 2.5/5 (4) |