Skip to content

Hy-MT2-1.8B vs Hy-MT2-30B-A3B

Hy-MT2-1.8B

Tencent

40#237
vs
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B

Tencent

40#238
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalHy-MT2-1.8BDeltaHy-MT2-30B-A3B
Capabilities
17
-17
33
Pricing
100
+0
100
Context window size
62
--
62
Recency
100
--
100
Output Capacity
60
--
60
Overall Result
1 wins
of 5
1 wins
It's a tie - both models win 1 signals each

Score History Unavailable

Not enough historical data to show a comparison chart. Score history is recorded weekly and will be available after at least two data points are collected.

40

Hy-MT2-1.8B

vs

40

Hy-MT2-30B-A3B

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

Hy-MT2-1.8B

Tencent

Best Value
Per request$0.000133
Daily$0.44
Monthly$13.25
Annual$159.00

Hy-MT2-30B-A3B

Tencent

Per request$0.000222
Daily$0.74
Monthly$22.15
Annual$265.80

Hy-MT2-1.8B saves you $8.90/month

That's $106.80/year compared to Hy-MT2-30B-A3B at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

40% cheaper
Choose Hy-MT2-1.8B for cost optimization

Hy-MT2-1.8B pricing:
Input:$0.04/M tokens
Output:$0.18/M tokens
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B pricing:
Input:$0.07/M tokens
Output:$0.29/M tokens
Tie
Hy-MT2-1.8B

Tencent

40

Composite Score

Tie
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B

Tencent

40

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricHy-MT2-1.8BHy-MT2-30B-A3BWinner
Overall Score
40
40
--
Rank#237#238
Hy-MT2-1.8B
Quality Rank#237#238
Hy-MT2-1.8B
Adoption Rank#237#238
Hy-MT2-1.8B
Parameters1.8B30B--
Context Window8K8K--
Pricing$0.04/$0.18/M$0.07/$0.29/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
17
33
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B
Pricing
100
100
Hy-MT2-1.8B
Context window size
62
62
Hy-MT2-1.8B
Recency
100
100
Hy-MT2-1.8B
Output Capacity
60
60
Hy-MT2-1.8B
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.

Hy-MT2-1.8BEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #237), placing it in the top 19% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
Hy-MT2-30B-A3BEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #238), placing it in the top 18% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 0-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 Hy-MT2-1.8B when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model

Choose Hy-MT2-30B-A3B when you need:

  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
Hy-MT2-1.8BBest Value
Input cost$0.04/M tokens
Output cost$0.18/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.006
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$3.32
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B
Input cost$0.07/M tokens
Output cost$0.29/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.009
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$5.54

Hy-MT2-1.8B offers 40% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $3.32/month with Hy-MT2-1.8B vs $5.54/month with Hy-MT2-30B-A3B - a $2.22 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Hy-MT2-1.8BFaster
Speed score0/100
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B
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

Hy-MT2-1.8B

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Hy-MT2-1.8B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Hy-MT2-1.8B

Long document analysis

Larger context window (8K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Hy-MT2-1.8B

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($0.18/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Hy-MT2-1.8B

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Hy-MT2-1.8B
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
Hy-MT2-1.8B

Hy-MT2-1.8B and Hy-MT2-30B-A3B are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

Hy-MT2-1.8B
Recommended

by Tencent

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 40% 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 Tencent

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityHy-MT2-1.8BHy-MT2-30B-A3B
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Modediffers
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Hy-MT2-1.8B

Tencent

Best Value
$0.2916
estimated monthly cost

Hy-MT2-30B-A3B

Tencent

$0.4872
estimated monthly cost

Hy-MT2-1.8B saves you $0.1956/month

That's 40% cheaper than Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 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
ParameterHy-MT2-1.8BHy-MT2-30B-A3B
Context Window8K8K
Max Output Tokens4,0964,096
Open SourceYesYes
CreatedAug 20, 2026Aug 20, 2026
Last updated: 48m ago

相关对比

Hy-MT2-1.8B vs Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (2026) | LM Market Cap