Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Claude Opus 4.8vsHy3
Updated Jul 2026

Claude Opus 4.8vsHy3

Hy3 is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.8 at $0.132/M vs $5/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 4.8 and Hy3 compared across 14 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 4.8Hy3
Input price$5/M tokens$0.132/M tokens
Output price$25/M tokens$0.528/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens262K tokens
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedMay 2026Jul 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 14 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Claude Opus 4.8196 words
Cinnamon Sugar Pull-Apart Bites A warm, gooey treat that tastes like a cinnamon roll but comes together in minutes! Ingredients (7 total) 2 cups all-purpose flour 1 tablespoon baking powder 1 teaspoon salt ¾ cup milk 4 tablespoons butter (melted, divided) ½ cup sugar 2 teaspoons ground cinnamon Instructions Preheat…
Read the full answer
Hy3178 words
Dish Name: Ruby Hurricane Pasta Ingredients (exactly 7 common pantry staples): Spaghetti (or any dry pasta) Canned diced tomatoes Garlic (pre-minced or whole cloves) Extra-virgin olive oil Red pepper flakes Salt Grated Parmesan (shelf-stable style) (Water for boiling pasta is assumed free and not counted.)
Read the full answer

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

Develop a comprehensive, cutting-edge 3-month longevity plan for a biohacker aiming to optimize longevity, physical and cognitive…

Claude Opus 4.81,481 words
The 90-Day Longevity Optimization Protocol A Comprehensive Biohacking Framework Critical Disclaimer: This protocol involves advanced interventions. Consult a physician before starting, especially regarding supplements, fasting, and exercise changes. Get baseline bloodwork first.
Read the full answer
Hy3498 words
The 90-Day Biohacker Longevity & Performance Protocol Goal: Maximize healthspan, cognitive resilience, and physical capacity via quantified self, metabolic flexibility, and targeted compounds. Assumptions: Healthy adult, experienced with fasting/exercise, access to wearables & supplements. I.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Claude Opus 4.81,123 words
48-Hour Action Plan: Drug Safety Signal First, a framing correction that drives everything: Your legal team's "6 months" almost certainly refers to a full label change negotiation.
Read the full answer
Hy3997 words
Assumptions / Starting Point Current time: Monday 9:00 AM. Board meeting: Wednesday 9:00 AM (Hour 48). Earnings call: Thursday 9:00 AM (Hour 72). Drug: $2B revenue, 4M patients, liver failure 1/8,000 over 5 yrs (~500 total, ~100/yr).
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Claude Opus 4.81,513 words
The Critical Caveat First The premise hides a problem that actually shapes the whole answer: the 1947 transistor wasn't lucky timing—it was the payoff of a prior intellectual buildup.
Read the full answer
Hy3921 words
Premise: A functional solid-state transistor (germanium point-contact or junction) is demonstrated in 1920, with steady refinement through the interwar years. Vacuum tubes are not immediately displaced, but by the early 1930s transistors are reliable enough for niche military and telecom use, and by the late 1930s they…
Read the full answer

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Claude Opus 4.8560 words
HarborTech Services (HTS) — 5-Year LBO Entry & Sources/Uses Item $m FY25 EBITDA 120.0 Entry EV (12.0x) 1,440.0 Transaction fees (2%) 28.8 Total uses 1,468.8 Term Loan (4.0x) 480.0 Mezz (1.5x) 180.0 Equity (plug) 808.8 Equity = (1,440 − 660) + 28.8 = $808.8m Year-by-Year Model ($m) Assumptions: TL 9% cash + 1% mandatory…
Read the full answer
Hy3354 words
1) Simplified LBO Model (FY2026–FY2030, $m) Entry (end FY25): EBITDA $120m, EV = 12.0x = $1,440m. Fees 2% = $28.8m. Debt: TL $480m (9% cash, 1% amort), Mezz $180m (12% cash + 2% PIK). Equity = 1,440+28.8–660 = $808.8m. FY Revenue EBITDA TL Int Mezz Int Cash Tax* Capex ΔNWC FCF after req. svc (opt.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Claude Opus 4.8676 words
Analysis: 3 Weakest Claims in MindMeld AI's Pitch Weak Claim #1: The Core Technology Claim (Slide 1 & 3) The claim: "Reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type *before you think it*" + "94% accuracy" via a non-invasive EEG headband.
Read the full answer
Hy3559 words
Below are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch, why they fail under scrutiny, and how to fix them with concrete, defensible improvements. Slide 3 – “94% accuracy” and “works with any language, any device” Why it’s weak: Technical implausibility: State-of-the-art non-invasive EEG decoding for…
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8
Hy3
Hy3

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Hy3 costs 47x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Claude Opus 4.8
Input
$5.00
Output
$25.00
Hy3
Input
$0.13
38× cheaper
Output
$0.53
47× cheaper

Hy3 is cheaper on both: 38× input, 47× output.

Where to run it

10 hosts, cheapest first

Claude Opus 4.84 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Amazon Bedrock$5.00 in·$25.00 out·1M·98.8% upAzure AI Foundry$5.00 in·$25.00 out·1M·93.8% upAnthropic$5.00 in·$25.00 out·1M·100% upGoogle Vertex AI$5.00 in·$25.00 out·1M·99.9% up
Hy36 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
DDeepInfrafp4$0.13 in·$0.53 out·262k·99.5% upTencentfp8$0.13 in·$0.53 out·262k·99.8% upNNovita$0.14 in·$0.58 out·262k·99.7% upPPhala$0.15 in·$0.64 out·262k·99.9% upAAtlasCloudfp8$0.20 in·$0.80 out·262k·99.9% upGGMI Cloudbf16degraded$0.14 in·$0.58 out·262k·99% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 22 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Claude Opus 4.8 is developed by Anthropic while Hy3 is developed by Tencent. Claude Opus 4.8 has a 1.0M token context window vs Hy3's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 14 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 4.8 and Hy3 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 14 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5/M input tokens and Hy3 costs $0.132/M input tokens. Hy3 is $4.87/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Opus 4.8 and Hy3 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Claude Opus 4.8 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Claude Opus 4.8 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Hy3 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Claude Opus 4.8 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Hy3 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 4.8 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Hy3 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Claude Opus 4.8 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Hy3 vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Claude Opus 4.8 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Opus 4.6Same lab
Claude Opus 4.8 logoClaude Fable 5.1 logo
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Fable 5.1Same lab
Hy3 logoHy4 Preview logo
Hy3 vs Hy4 PreviewSame lab
Hy3 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Hy3 vs Claude Opus 4.6Same size
Hy3 logoLlama 3.1 70B (Instruct) logo
Hy3 vs Llama 3.1 70B (Instruct)New provider
Hy3 logoLlama 4 Maverick logo
Hy3 vs Llama 4 MaverickSame size
Hy3 logoLlama 4 Scout logo
Hy3 vs Llama 4 ScoutNew provider
Hy3 logoMercury logo
Hy3 vs MercuryNew provider

Model pages

Claude Opus 4.8 logo
Claude Opus 4.858 outputs, specs and price
Hy3 logo
Hy314 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed