Skip to content

Hy3 (free) vs GLM 4.5

Hy3 (free)

Tencent

69#110
vs
GLM 4.5

Zhipu AI

68#112
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalHy3 (free)DeltaGLM 4.5
Capabilities
67
--
67
Benchmarks
68
+0
68
Pricing
100
+2
98
Context window size
77
+4
73
Recency
100
+32
68
Output Capacity
90
+7
83
Overall Result
5 wins
of 6
0 wins
Hy3 (free) wins 5 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (17 data points)
Hy3 (free)GLM 4.5
Hy3 (free)

68.8

current score

Leader

Hy3 (free)

right now

GLM 4.5

68.3

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Hy3 (free)

Tencent

Best Value
Per request$0.000000
Daily$0.00
Monthly$0.00
Annual$0.00

GLM 4.5

Zhipu AI

Per request$0.001700
Daily$5.67
Monthly$170.00
Annual$2040.00

Hy3 (free) saves you $170.00/month

That's $2040.00/year compared to GLM 4.5 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

100% cheaper
Choose Hy3 (free) for cost optimization

Hy3 (free) pricing:
Input:$0.00/M tokens
Output:$0.00/M tokens
GLM 4.5 pricing:
Input:$0.60/M tokens
Output:$2.20/M tokens
Winner
Hy3 (free)

Tencent

69

Composite Score

GLM 4.5

Zhipu AI

68

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricHy3 (free)GLM 4.5Winner
Overall Score
69
68
Hy3 (free)
Rank#110#112
Hy3 (free)
Quality Rank#110#112
Hy3 (free)
Adoption Rank#110#112
Hy3 (free)
Parameters------
Context Window262K131K
Hy3 (free)
PricingFree$0.60/$2.20/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
67
67
Hy3 (free)
Benchmarks
68
68
Hy3 (free)
Pricing
100
98
Hy3 (free)
Context window size
77
73
Hy3 (free)
Recency
100
68
Hy3 (free)
Output Capacity
90
83
Hy3 (free)
Benchmark Head-to-Head(1 benchmarks)
Hy3 (free): 0GLM 4.5: 0
Hy3 (free)
GLM 4.5
Normalized 0-100%
Arena Elo
-1411
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

Hy3 (free)Competitive

Scores 69/100 (rank #110), placing it in the top 62% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 4.5Competitive

Scores 68/100 (rank #112), placing it in the top 62% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 1-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Hy3 (free) when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Processing long documents or large codebases (262K token context)
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model

Choose GLM 4.5 when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
Hy3 (free)
Input cost$0.00/M tokens
Output cost$0.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.000
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$0.00
GLM 4.5
Input cost$0.60/M tokens
Output cost$2.20/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.041
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$42.00

Compare the cost per quality point to find the best value for your specific workload.

Latency & Speed
Hy3 (free)Faster
Speed score0/100
GLM 4.5
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Hy3 (free)

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Hy3 (free) also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Hy3 (free)

Long document analysis

Larger context window (262K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Hy3 (free)

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($0.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Hy3 (free)

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (69/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Hy3 (free)
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
Hy3 (free)

Hy3 (free) and GLM 4.5 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.5 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

Hy3 (free)
Recommended

by Tencent

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 100% lower pricing; better value at scale
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale

by Zhipu AI

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityHy3 (free)GLM 4.5
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Hy3 (free)

Tencent

Best Value
$0.000000
estimated monthly cost

GLM 4.5

Zhipu AI

$3.72
estimated monthly cost

Hy3 (free) saves you $3.72/month

That's 100% cheaper than GLM 4.5 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterHy3 (free)GLM 4.5
Context Window262K131K
Max Output Tokens262,14498,304
Open SourceYesYes
CreatedJul 6, 2026Jul 25, 2025
Last updated: 36m ago

Related comparisons

Hy3 (free) vs GLM 4.5 (2026) | LM Market Cap