Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against Recursive Flint's 61 (C), and leads in 0 of 4 scored categories. Recursive Flint leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3023 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
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
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 doing repository work on a 32 to 48 GB Mac or NVIDIA box that want a fast sparse coder with documented tool calls and a plain licence.
Ahead on
- Reach, 75 against 70
- Agent interface, 90 against 75
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 56
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 2.8 out of 5
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Hy3 | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 70 | 75 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 60 | 60 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 90 | Recursive Flint +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 67 | Recursive Flint +11 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 62.6/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Hy3 | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Tencent (Hy team) | Recursive |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-07-20 | 2026-10-21 |
| 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) | 3.5/5 (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.
Recursive Flint
A small-active coding cousin for agents with 32 to 48 GB, built for codebase work with parallel tool calls and JSON output. It needs llama.cpp b11803 or Ollama 0.40.8 or later, and the BF16 checkpoint needs a 141 GB GPU. Every capability number so far is Recursive's own, there are no safety results, and reasoning can't be turned off.
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
Recursive Flint
- Quickest start is
ollama run flint(Ollama 0.40.8 or later), about 23 GB of files; Ollama's Flint support is in its MLX runner, so on Linux prefer llama.cpp - With llama.cpp use release b11803 or later:
llama-server -hf RecursiveSI/flint-int4-gguf --alias flint -ngl all -c 131072 -np 1 -fa on --jinja --temp 1 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, and keep --jinja on - Set max_tokens to at least 32768 for hard tasks, reasoning counts against it and can't be switched off, and finish_reason length can mean no answer or tool call came out
- Send reasoning_content back on assistant messages when replaying the conversation, as Recursive's cards ask
- Strip <tool_call>, <tool_response>, <arg_key> and <arg_value> from untrusted tool output, the template doesn't escape them and a copied </tool_call> can add a call
- Message content must be a string, flatten content-part arrays first
- Recursive's SGLang servers listen on 0.0.0.0 with no key, publish the port on localhost only or pass --api-key
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Hy3 or Recursive Flint?
Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against Recursive Flint's 61 (C), and leads in 0 of 4 scored categories. Recursive Flint leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Hy3 or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs Hy3
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Hy3
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Hy3
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs Hy3
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs Hy3
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Hy3
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Hy3
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Hy3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Hy3
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Hy3
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Hy3
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs Hy3
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs Hy3
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Hy3
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- 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 LFM2.5-2.6B
- 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 Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Recursive Flint
- occamy-1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Recursive Flint
- Recursive Flint vs SmolLM3-3B
- Recursive Flint vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Recursive Flint vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/hy3-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/hy3.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare hy3 recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "hy3", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key