Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Hy3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against Step 3.7 Flash's 59.8 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Step 3.7 Flash leads on agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 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
- Risk, 60 against 45
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 39
Watch for
597.6 GB in BF16, 299.9 GB in FP8 and 168.5 GB at the smallest 4-bit build
Best for Teams with a GPU server or a provider account that want an open, long-context agent model with vision
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 85 against 75
Watch for
About 131 GB to run at 4 bits with images, over a 128 GB machine's share
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Documentation and upkeep Hy3 +17
Hy3 56
The model card earns 11, covering intended use, architecture, parameters and context but not limitations, languages or a knowledge cut-off. Training data earns 5 for a general statement with no cut-off. The last change earns 10, a config.json edit on 20 July and AngelSlim uploads on 21 July, within 180 days on 2 November 2026; the line drops to 5 after 17 January 2027 unless the files change. Responsiveness earns 10, with Tencent replies on 7 of 19 discussions and none since 22 July. Version policy earns the full 10, since the preview stays in its own repository and the card dates it and says what changed. File health earns 10, with files that agree and no broken-file report waiting.
Step 3.7 Flash 39
Model card 14, Intended use, the architecture, the parameters, the context and the language (in the metadata) are on the card. Training data 0, Nothing on the card about the training data. Last change 10, the last commit, on 3 June 2026, fixed the modelling code, 160 days before this check and within 180. Responsiveness 0, none of the 11 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (29 May to 24 June 2026) has a reply from a stepfun-ai member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, Step-3.5-Flash stays in its own repositories and 3.7 came out in new ones, with no dated note on the older cards that we read. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture and the context, and June commits fixed the modelling code. 14 + 0 + 10 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 39.
Risk Hy3 +15
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 nothing from the repository runs at load or prompt time. Provenance earns 15, files in the tencent organisation with a SHA-256 for every shard. Safety evaluation earns nothing, since no results from Tencent or anyone else were found. Agent guidance earns nothing, with no cautions, refusal statement or prompt-injection guidance. Licence risk keeps all 15 under plain Apache 2.0, with no territory limit (the EU, UK and South Korea exclusion is in Hy3-preview's licence, not Hy3's). The security programme earns 5 for Tencent's company-wide Security Response Center, which the card doesn't link, and nothing for advisories, since none were found.
Step 3.7 Flash 45
File safety 15, safetensors and GGUF only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the stepfun-ai organisation, which the card's StepFun platform and model page belong to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations section and gives no guidance on prompt injection, instruction priority, refusals or safeguards. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, threshold or change clause. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw on the card, and our StepFun API listing found no security.txt, bug bounty or disclosure policy. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Agent interface Step 3.7 Flash +10
Hy3 75
The chat template earns 20, a chat_template.jinja in the repository. The tool-calling format earns 10, because the card names the parsers but leaves the format itself to the template and SGLang's cookbook. Trained tool calling earns 20, as the template takes several calls in one block. Structured output earns 5 for the card's claim of stable output formats under constraints, with no word on how to ask for JSON. Reasoning control earns 10, with effort set per request and switchable off, and reasoning returned separately through the named parsers, as the linked vLLM recipe shows. Context earns 10 for 262,144 tokens native.
Step 3.7 Flash 85
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (5,723 characters). Tool-calling format 25, the card names the parser to use in two runtimes, step3p5 in vLLM (with auto tool choice) and in SGLang, and both ship Step parsers in a release. Trained tool calling 20, the card presents tool orchestration as a main use, with multi-turn results, and the template renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Nothing on the card about JSON or schema-constrained output for the weights. Reasoning control 10, the template has a reasoning_effort setting and keeps reasoning_content, and the card names the step3p5 reasoning parser for vLLM and SGLang, which returns the reasoning apart from the answer. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, and 262,144 positions in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Hy3 | Step 3.7 Flash | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 70 | 70 | even |
| Risk | 20%20 | 60 | 45 | Hy3 +15 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 85 | Step 3.7 Flash +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 39 | Hy3 +17 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 62.6/100 | C 59.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Hy3 | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Tencent (Hy team) | StepFun |
| 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 (metadata and card; no LICENSE file) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-07-20 | 2026-06-03 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | none |
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.
Step 3.7 Flash
A capable open agent model with a clean licence, every kind of build and four released runtimes. Two things hold it back: it's a little too big for a 128 GB machine at 4 bits, whatever the card says, and StepFun has gone quiet on the repository since June. No safety results, limitations or data description.
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
Step 3.7 Flash
- On a 128 GB machine the 4-bit GGUF won't fit with a working context. Use StepFun's API or a provider, or a server
- On vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser step3p5 --reasoning-parser step3p5 - The card's commands pass trust-remote-code. Released Transformers 5.22.2 has the model built in if you'd rather not run the repository's code
- For llama.cpp load the mmproj file from StepFun's GGUF repository for image input
- StepFun's API has two hosts. Use the one where your key was issued,
api.stepfun.aiorapi.stepfun.com - The same model is on our StepFun API listing, with prices and terms
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Hy3 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Hy3 scores 62.6 (B) on agent readiness against Step 3.7 Flash's 59.8 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Step 3.7 Flash leads on agent interface.
Other comparisons with Hy3 or Step 3.7 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Hy3
- Agents-A1-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Hy3
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Hy3
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Arete-27B vs Hy3
- Arete-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs Hy3
- BigBang-v1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Carbon-X vs Hy3
- Carbon-X vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Cola2 vs Hy3
- Cola2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Hy3
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Hy3
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Hy3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Hy3
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Devstral Small 2 vs Hy3
- Devstral Small 2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Hy3
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Hy3
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Hy3
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-5.3 vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- gpt-oss-120b vs Hy3
- gpt-oss-120b vs Step 3.7 Flash
- gpt-oss-20b vs Hy3
- gpt-oss-20b vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Hy3
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Hy3
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Hy3
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Hy3
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Hy3 vs Inkling
- Hy3 vs Inkling-Small
- Hy3 vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Hy3 vs Kimi K3
- Hy3 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Hy3 vs Kolibri-1
- Hy3 vs Kronos
- Hy3 vs Laguna M.1
- Hy3 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Hy3 vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Hy3 vs LBS-27B
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy3 vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Hy3 vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Hy3 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs LongCat-2.5
- Hy3 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Hy3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Hy3 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Hy3 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Hy3 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Hy3 vs Mistral Large 4
- Hy3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Hy3 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Hy3 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Hy3 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- 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 North Mini Code 1.0
- Hy3 vs occamy-1.0
- Hy3 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Hy3 vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- Hy3 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- 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 Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Hy3 vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- 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)
- Hy3 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Hy3 vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Hy3 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Hy3 vs ZAYA1-8B
- Inkling-Small vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Inkling vs Step 3.7 Flash
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kimi K3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kolibri-1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kronos vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna M.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LBS-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LongCat-2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Mistral Large 4 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- occamy-1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Recursive Flint vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ripple-65B Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- SmolLM3-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Step 3.7 Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/hy3-vs-step-3-7-flash.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/hy3.json·/api/v1/tools/step-3-7-flash.json - From a terminal
anchor compare hy3 step-3-7-flash(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "hy3", "b": "step-3-7-flash"}at/mcp, no key