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. GPT-5.3-CodexvsHy3
Updated Jul 2026

GPT-5.3-CodexvsHy3

Hy3 is cheaper than GPT-5.3-Codex at $0.132/M vs $1.75/M input tokens.

GPT-5.3-Codex and Hy3 compared across 14 shared prompts
SpecGPT-5.3-CodexHy3
Input price$1.75/M tokens$0.132/M tokens
Output price$14/M tokens$0.528/M tokens
Context window400K tokens262K tokens
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedFeb 2026Jul 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

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

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

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

GPT-5.3-Codex785 words
Great counterfactual. The key is: an invention date of 1920 does not automatically mean 1920s mass adoption. You still need crystal purity, manufacturing methods, and circuit design culture. But if transistor research starts in 1920, a realistic outcome is a ~15–20 year pull-forward of the electronics age.
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

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-5.3-Codex429 words
Great concept, but three claims stand out as especially weak from an investor diligence perspective: “MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it.” (Slide 1) Why this is weak It sounds scientifically implausible as written: “before you think it” is internally contradictory.
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

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

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

GPT-5.3-Codex485 words
Absolutely—great goal. Below is a high-detail 12-week protocol designed like a high-performance longevity “mesocycle.” I’ll keep it practical, measurable, and advanced—but still safe. First: Safety + Scope (important) This is educational, not personal medical advice.
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…

GPT-5.3-Codex915 words
I would not wait. This is a textbook “patient safety + material disclosure” crisis. The right move is rapid, documented, regulator-first action. Immediate stance (set at Hour 0) Patient safety first (interim risk controls now, not after perfect certainty).
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

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-5.3-Codex203 words
Recipe: “Weeknight Volcano Pasta” 🌋🍝 A cozy, spicy-savory pasta made from pantry staples in about 25 minutes. Ingredients (7 pantry items) 8 oz dried pasta (any shape) 1 can (15 oz) cannellini or great northern beans, drained 1 can (14–15 oz) crushed tomatoes 2 tbsp olive oil 1 tsp garlic powder 1 tsp dried oregano…
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

Mini LBO Underwrite

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

GPT-5.3-Codex551 words
Below is a clean LBO build using your assumptions only ($ in millions). Entry math (end FY2025) EV = (12.0 \times 120 = 1,440.0) Fees = (2.0\% \times 1,440.0 = 28.8) Total uses = (1,468.8) Debt at close (5.5x EBITDA): Term Loan = (4.0 \times 120 = 480.0) Mezz = (1.5 \times 120 = 180.0) Total debt = 660.0 Equity check…
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
Our Verdict
GPT-5.3-Codex
GPT-5.3-Codex
Hy3
Hy3

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

Hy3 costs 27x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

GPT-5.3-Codex
Input
$1.75
Output
$14.00
Hy3
Input
$0.13
13× cheaper
Output
$0.53
27× cheaper

Hy3 is cheaper on both: 13× input, 27× output.

Where to run it

8 hosts, cheapest first

GPT-5.3-Codex2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Azure AI Foundry$1.75 in·$14.00 out·400k·100% upOpenAI$1.75 in·$14.00 out·400k·100% 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

GPT-5.3-Codex is developed by OpenAI while Hy3 is developed by Tencent. GPT-5.3-Codex has a 400K 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-5.3-Codex 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-5.3-Codex costs $1.75/M input tokens and Hy3 costs $0.132/M input tokens. Hy3 is $1.62/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-5.3-Codex 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-5.3-Codex logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
GPT-5.3-Codex vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Hy3 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
GPT-5.3-Codex logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
GPT-5.3-Codex vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Hy3 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
GPT-5.3-Codex logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
GPT-5.3-Codex vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Hy3 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
GPT-5.3-Codex logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
GPT-5.3-Codex 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-5.3-Codex logoGPT-6 Astra Pro logo
GPT-5.3-Codex vs GPT-6 Astra ProSame lab
GPT-5.3-Codex logoGPT-6 Astra logo
GPT-5.3-Codex vs GPT-6 AstraSame lab
Hy3 logoHy4 Preview logo
Hy3 vs Hy4 PreviewSame lab
Hy3 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Hy3 vs Claude Opus 4.6Same size
Hy3 logoMistral Large logo
Hy3 vs Mistral LargeNew provider
Hy3 logoMistral Large 2 logo
Hy3 vs Mistral Large 2New provider
Hy3 logoMistral Large 3 2512 logo
Hy3 vs Mistral Large 3 2512Same size
Hy3 logoMistral Medium 3 logo
Hy3 vs Mistral Medium 3New provider

Model pages

GPT-5.3-Codex logo
GPT-5.3-Codex53 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