Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

Hy3 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next

Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against Qwen3-Coder-Next's 57.6 (C), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. Qwen3-Coder-Next 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 42
  • Risk, 60 against 50
  • Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 41

Watch for

597.6 GB in BF16, 299.9 GB in FP8 and 168.5 GB at the smallest 4-bit build

Qwen3-Coder-Next C

Best for Agents that want a local coding model for long tool-calling loops on a single 64 GB to 128 GB machine.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 85 against 70

Watch for

No LICENSE file anywhere and a broken licence link on the card

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runHy3Qwen3-Coder-NextEdge
Capability35%355742Hy3 +15
Reach25%257085Qwen3-Coder-Next +15
Risk20%206050Hy3 +10
Agent interface10%107575even
Documentation and upkeep10%105641Hy3 +15
Negative events≤1500
TotalB 62.6/100C 57.6/100

Facts side by side

FactHy3Qwen3-Coder-Next
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorTencent (Hy team)Alibaba (Qwen team)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-07-202026-02-03
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno 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 reviews2.8/5 (4)2.8/5 (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.

Qwen3-Coder-Next

A fast coding cousin for agent harnesses, with 3B active parameters and tool calling trained across many scaffold formats for Claude Code, Cline or Qwen Code loops. Alibaba's 4-bit GGUF needs about 58 GB, fitting one 64 GB machine, and two providers host it. The main risk is neglect, with no change since February, no replies and no safety results.

Before you call either

Hy3

  1. 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
  2. In SGLang use --tool-call-parser hunyuan --reasoning-parser hunyuan, as the card shows
  3. 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
  4. With the vLLM reasoning parser the chain of thought comes back in message.reasoning and the answer in message.content
  5. 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
  6. Use temperature 0.9 and top_p 1.0, the card's recommended sampling
  7. 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
  8. Without the hardware, call it through Featherless AI or DeepInfra via Hugging Face's inference providers

Qwen3-Coder-Next

  1. Quickest start is ollama run qwen3-coder-next (Q4_K_M, 52 GB of files)
  2. On our reference machine Alibaba's Q8_0 GGUF (84.8 GB, about 102 GB in use) also fits, run with llama-server -m Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q8_0/Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q8_0-00001-of-00004.gguf --jinja -ngl 99 -fa on -c 131072
  3. Serve with vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-Next --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder (vLLM 0.15.0 or later), using the built-in parser rather than the repository's qwen3coder_tool_parser_vllm.py, which fails to import on newer vLLM per discussion 36
  4. The card's commands use tensor parallel 2 though the text says 4 GPUs, and it suggests cutting the context to 32,768 if the server fails to start
  5. There's no thinking mode, so don't pass enable_thinking or wait for reasoning_content
  6. Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 40
  7. The GGUF card's llama.cpp example path omits the quant from the file name; the real files are named like Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q4_K_M-00001-of-00004.gguf
  8. Validate any JSON it returns, since structured output isn't documented

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Hy3 or Qwen3-Coder-Next?

Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against Qwen3-Coder-Next's 57.6 (C), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. Qwen3-Coder-Next leads on reach.

Other comparisons with Hy3 or Qwen3-Coder-Next

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.