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
  • Default Index
  • 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. GPT-4.1vsHy3
Updated Jul 2026

GPT-4.1vsHy3

Hy3 is cheaper than GPT-4.1 at $0.132/M vs $2/M input tokens.

GPT-4.1 and Hy3 compared across 14 shared prompts
SpecGPT-4.1Hy3
Input price$2/M tokens$0.132/M tokens
Output price$8/M tokens$0.528/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens262K tokens
ParametersNot disclosed295B
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedApr 2025Jul 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…

GPT-4.1135 words
Recipe Name: Golden Honey Butter Toast Bites Ingredients: Sliced bread (4 slices, any type) Butter (2 tablespoons) Honey (2 tablespoons) Cinnamon (1/2 teaspoon) Vanilla extract (1/2 teaspoon) Brown sugar (1 tablespoon) Salt (a pinch) Instructions: Preheat your oven to 375°F (190°C).
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

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

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

GPT-4.1875 words
This is a fascinating scenario! Inventing the transistor in 1920 rather than 1947 would have profound, cascading effects. Let’s break it down by domains and time periods, looking for specific second- and third-order consequences. Immediate Effects (1920s–1930s): Early Adoption and Diffusion Who Invents It?
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

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…

GPT-4.1833 words
This is a high-stakes scenario requiring immediate, coordinated action balancing legal, ethical, financial, and reputational considerations. Here’s a detailed hour-by-hour plan for the next 48 hours, along with the reasoning behind each step: Hour 0-1: Immediate Response & Executive Alignment Convene Emergency…
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

Mini LBO Underwrite

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

GPT-4.11,204 words
Let's proceed step by step. All calculations are built from the data provided above. Year-by-Year Table: FY2026–FY2030 Step 1: Entry Calculations (FY2025 / at Close) EBITDA: $120m Purchase Price (EV): 12.0 × $120m = $1,440m Transaction Fees: 2.0% × $1,440m = $28.8m Total Uses: $1,440m + $28.8m = $1,468.8m Debt at…
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

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

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

GPT-4.11,087 words
Absolutely! Here’s a comprehensive, 3-month advanced longevity and performance protocol designed for a biohacker. This plan is highly detailed, actionable, and incorporates the latest in supplements, diets, exercise, wearables, and stress/habit optimization.
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

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.…

GPT-4.1643 words
Absolutely, here’s a critical evaluation of the MindMeld AI pitch deck, identifying the three weakest claims, why they are weak, and actionable suggestions for improvement: Solution Slide: "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy.
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
GPT-4.1
GPT-4.1
Hy3
Hy3

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

Hy3 costs 15x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

GPT-4.1
Input
$2.00
Output
$8.00
Hy3
Input
$0.13
15× cheaper
Output
$0.53
15× cheaper

Hy3 is cheaper on both: 15× input, 15× output.

Where to run it

8 hosts, cheapest first

GPT-4.12 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Azure AI Foundry$2.00 in·$8.00 out·1M·99.8% upOpenAI$2.00 in·$8.00 out·1M·99.9% up
Hy36 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Tencentfp8$0.08 in·$0.33 out·262k·99.9% upDDeepInfrafp4$0.13 in·$0.53 out·262k·99.6% upGGMI Cloudbf16$0.14 in·$0.58 out·262k·98.6% 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% up

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

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

GPT-4.1 is developed by OpenAI while Hy3 is developed by Tencent. GPT-4.1 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. GPT-4.1 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.

GPT-4.1 costs $2/M input tokens and Hy3 costs $0.132/M input tokens. Hy3 is $1.87/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 GPT-4.1 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

GPT-4.1 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
GPT-4.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Hy3 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
GPT-4.1 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
GPT-4.1 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Hy3 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
GPT-4.1 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
GPT-4.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Hy3 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
GPT-4.1 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
GPT-4.1 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

GPT-4.1 logoGPT-4.1 Mini logo
GPT-4.1 vs GPT-4.1 MiniVersion compare
GPT-4.1 logoGPT-6 Astra Pro logo
GPT-4.1 vs GPT-6 Astra ProVersion compare
Hy3 logoHy4 Preview logo
Hy3 vs Hy4 PreviewSame lab
Hy3 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Hy3 vs Claude Opus 4.6Same size
Hy3 logoNorth Mini Code logo
Hy3 vs North Mini CodeNew provider
Hy3 logoAmazon Nova 2 Lite logo
Hy3 vs Amazon Nova 2 LiteNew provider
Hy3 logoNova Premier 1.0 logo
Hy3 vs Nova Premier 1.0New provider
Hy3 logoo1 logo
Hy3 vs o1Cross-provider

Model pages

GPT-4.1 logo
GPT-4.159 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
  • Default Index
  • 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