Pick Claude Opus 5.5 for performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 or anthropic reports it surpasses fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning. Pick Hunyuan Hy3 for frontier-level reported reasoning and science (gpqa diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost or runs a 295b model at the cost of a 21b — only 21b parameters active per token. Choose Hunyuan Hy3 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Opus 5.5 if you want a managed API.
Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic, US) and Hunyuan Hy3 (Tencent, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Opus 5.5 is anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Hunyuan Hy3 is a 295B Apache-2.0 open MoE that reaches frontier reasoning quality while running at roughly 21B active-parameter cost. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Cost model: Hunyuan Hy3 ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Claude Opus 5.5 is API-metered at $4/$20 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
Context window: Claude Opus 5.5 holds 3.9× more — 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) vs 256K (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Claude Opus 5.5 is the newer model by about 3 months (released September 22, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
Claude Opus 5.5
Hunyuan Hy3
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Tencent (China)
Released
September 22, 2026
July 6, 2026
Context window
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
256K (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)
$4/$20 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, image, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5: Claude Opus 5.5 — Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching — and it carries the larger 1M tokens context.
Anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning: Claude Opus 5.5 — Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching — and it is the newer of the two.
Pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok: Claude Opus 5.5 — Its 1M tokens window holds about 3.9× more than Hunyuan Hy3's 256K in a single prompt.
Frontier-level reported reasoning and science (GPQA Diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost: Hunyuan Hy3 — Claude Opus 5.5 is comparatively weak here — not a reasoning-ceiling upgrade over Fable 5.1 — pitched as matching its performance at lower cost, not beating it outright
Runs a 295B model at the cost of a 21B — only 21B parameters active per token: Hunyuan Hy3 — Claude Opus 5.5 is comparatively weak here — like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window
Clean, unrestricted Apache-2.0 license with no geographic carve-out: Hunyuan Hy3 — A 295B Apache-2.0 open MoE that reaches frontier reasoning quality while running at roughly 21B active-parameter cost — and its weights are open while Claude Opus 5.5 is API-only.
Lowest cost at scale: Hunyuan Hy3 — Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Claude Opus 5.5's $4/$20 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input: Claude Opus 5.5 — Its 1M tokens window is about 3.9× larger than Hunyuan Hy3's 256K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Hunyuan Hy3 — At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Claude Opus 5.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Claude Opus 5.5 — Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: Hunyuan Hy3 — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Claude Opus 5.5 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5: Claude Opus 5.5 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is frontier-level reported reasoning and science (gpqa diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost: Hunyuan Hy3 — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Claude Opus 5.5 or Hunyuan Hy3 — Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Claude Opus 5.5: where it fits
Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Released September 22, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5, anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning, pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok, and output speed increased over 30% versus Opus 5.
Its trade-offs are real: not a reasoning-ceiling upgrade over Fable 5.1 — pitched as matching its performance at lower cost, not beating it outright, like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window, and first model in the 5.5 line; Anthropic has signaled Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 are still weeks away, so the lower tiers of the family aren't out yet. At $4 in / $20 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Hunyuan Hy3: where it fits
A 295B Apache-2.0 open MoE that reaches frontier reasoning quality while running at roughly 21B active-parameter cost. Released July 6, 2026 by Tencent, it is built for frontier-level reported reasoning and science (GPQA Diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost, runs a 295B model at the cost of a 21B — only 21B parameters active per token, clean, unrestricted Apache-2.0 license with no geographic carve-out, and broad day-one ecosystem support plus an FP8 checkpoint.
Its trade-offs: benchmarks are largely self-reported, and the ultra-low hosted pricing is a limited promotion, and the hosted API is China-jurisdiction, and self-hosting a 295B MoE still needs serious hardware. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Hunyuan Hy3 gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Claude Opus 5.5 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Hunyuan Hy3 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 5.5 leans toward performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 while Hunyuan Hy3 leans toward frontier-level reported reasoning and science (gpqa diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Hunyuan Hy3?
Hunyuan Hy3 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Claude Opus 5.5 is API-metered at $4/$20 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5.5 — 1M tokens vs 256K, about 3.9× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Opus 5.5 and Hunyuan Hy3 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 5.5, Hunyuan Hy3 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 5.5 or Hunyuan Hy3?
Claude Opus 5.5 — released September 22, 2026, about 3 months after Hunyuan Hy3.
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Hunyuan Hy3
Anthropic · US | Tencent · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Opus 5.5 for performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 or anthropic reports it surpasses fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning. Pick Hunyuan Hy3 for frontier-level reported reasoning and science (gpqa diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost or runs a 295b model at the cost of a 21b — only 21b parameters active per token. Choose Hunyuan Hy3 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Opus 5.5 if you want a managed API.
Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic, US) and Hunyuan Hy3 (Tencent, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Opus 5.5 is anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Hunyuan Hy3 is a 295B Apache-2.0 open MoE that reaches frontier reasoning quality while running at roughly 21B active-parameter cost. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Cost model: Hunyuan Hy3 ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Claude Opus 5.5 is API-metered at $4/$20 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
▸Context window: Claude Opus 5.5 holds 3.9× more — 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) vs 256K (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Claude Opus 5.5 is the newer model by about 3 months (released September 22, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
▸Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Claude Opus 5.5
Hunyuan Hy3
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Tencent (China)
Released
September 22, 2026
July 6, 2026
Context window
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
256K (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)
$4/$20 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, image, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5
Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching — and it carries the larger 1M tokens context.
Anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning
Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching — and it is the newer of the two.
Pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok
Claude Opus 5.5
Its 1M tokens window holds about 3.9× more than Hunyuan Hy3's 256K in a single prompt.
Frontier-level reported reasoning and science (GPQA Diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost
Hunyuan Hy3
Claude Opus 5.5 is comparatively weak here — not a reasoning-ceiling upgrade over Fable 5.1 — pitched as matching its performance at lower cost, not beating it outright
Runs a 295B model at the cost of a 21B — only 21B parameters active per token
Hunyuan Hy3
Claude Opus 5.5 is comparatively weak here — like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window
Clean, unrestricted Apache-2.0 license with no geographic carve-out
Hunyuan Hy3
A 295B Apache-2.0 open MoE that reaches frontier reasoning quality while running at roughly 21B active-parameter cost — and its weights are open while Claude Opus 5.5 is API-only.
Lowest cost at scale
Hunyuan Hy3
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Claude Opus 5.5's $4/$20 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Claude Opus 5.5
Its 1M tokens window is about 3.9× larger than Hunyuan Hy3's 256K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Hunyuan Hy3
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Claude Opus 5.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Claude Opus 5.5
Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Hunyuan Hy3
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Claude Opus 5.5 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5
→ Claude Opus 5.5
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is frontier-level reported reasoning and science (gpqa diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost
→ Hunyuan Hy3
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Claude Opus 5.5 or Hunyuan Hy3
Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Claude Opus 5.5: where it fits
Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Released September 22, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5, anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning, pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok, and output speed increased over 30% versus Opus 5.
Its trade-offs are real: not a reasoning-ceiling upgrade over Fable 5.1 — pitched as matching its performance at lower cost, not beating it outright, like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window, and first model in the 5.5 line; Anthropic has signaled Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 are still weeks away, so the lower tiers of the family aren't out yet. At $4 in / $20 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Hunyuan Hy3: where it fits
A 295B Apache-2.0 open MoE that reaches frontier reasoning quality while running at roughly 21B active-parameter cost. Released July 6, 2026 by Tencent, it is built for frontier-level reported reasoning and science (GPQA Diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost, runs a 295B model at the cost of a 21B — only 21B parameters active per token, clean, unrestricted Apache-2.0 license with no geographic carve-out, and broad day-one ecosystem support plus an FP8 checkpoint.
Its trade-offs: benchmarks are largely self-reported, and the ultra-low hosted pricing is a limited promotion, and the hosted API is China-jurisdiction, and self-hosting a 295B MoE still needs serious hardware. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Hunyuan Hy3 gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Claude Opus 5.5 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Claude Opus 5.5 and Hunyuan Hy3 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Hunyuan Hy3 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 5.5 leans toward performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 while Hunyuan Hy3 leans toward frontier-level reported reasoning and science (gpqa diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Hunyuan Hy3?
Hunyuan Hy3 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Claude Opus 5.5 is API-metered at $4/$20 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5.5 — 1M tokens vs 256K, about 3.9× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Opus 5.5 and Hunyuan Hy3 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 5.5, Hunyuan Hy3 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 5.5 or Hunyuan Hy3?
Claude Opus 5.5 — released September 22, 2026, about 3 months after Hunyuan Hy3.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.