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. Pick MAI-Thinking-1 for very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%) or microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without openai distillation. Choose Hunyuan Hy3 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; MAI-Thinking-1 if you want a managed API.
Hunyuan Hy3 (Tencent, China) and MAI-Thinking-1 (Microsoft, US) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Hunyuan Hy3 is a 295B Apache-2.0 open MoE that reaches frontier reasoning quality while running at roughly 21B active-parameter cost. MAI-Thinking-1 is microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. Their biggest split is open vs. closed weights, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.
Key differences
Cost model: Hunyuan Hy3 ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
Context window: both advertise 256K (~384 pages). Tie on paper — test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
Recency: Hunyuan Hy3 is the newer model by about 34 days (released July 6, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Ecosystem: this is a China-vs-US matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
Hunyuan Hy3
MAI-Thinking-1
Provider
Tencent (China)
Microsoft (US)
Released
July 6, 2026
June 2, 2026
Context window
256K (~384 pages)
256K (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)
Open weight (self-host / free)
Not published
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
No — API only
Modalities
text, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Frontier-level reported reasoning and science (GPQA Diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost: Hunyuan Hy3 — A core design strength of Hunyuan Hy3.
Runs a 295B model at the cost of a 21B — only 21B parameters active per token: Hunyuan Hy3 — A core design strength of Hunyuan Hy3.
Clean, unrestricted Apache-2.0 license with no geographic carve-out: Hunyuan Hy3 — A core design strength of Hunyuan Hy3.
Very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%): MAI-Thinking-1 — A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation: MAI-Thinking-1 — A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class: MAI-Thinking-1 — A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Which should you pick?
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: Hunyuan Hy3 — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; MAI-Thinking-1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is frontier-level reported reasoning and science (gpqa diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost: Hunyuan Hy3 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%): MAI-Thinking-1 — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: MAI-Thinking-1 or Hunyuan Hy3 — Origin (China vs US) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
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 are real: 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.
MAI-Thinking-1: where it fits
Microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. Released June 2, 2026 by Microsoft, it is built for very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%), microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation, efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class, and competitive with Claude Opus 4.6 on SWE-Bench Pro (vendor-reported).
Its trade-offs: closed and in private preview — no open weights, no published pricing, thin availability, and benchmarks are largely self-reported.
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. MAI-Thinking-1 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 Hunyuan Hy3 or MAI-Thinking-1 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, Hunyuan Hy3 leans toward frontier-level reported reasoning and science (gpqa diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost while MAI-Thinking-1 leans toward very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Hunyuan Hy3 or MAI-Thinking-1?
Hunyuan Hy3 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. 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?
Both advertise 256K (~384 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both Hunyuan Hy3 and MAI-Thinking-1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Hunyuan Hy3, MAI-Thinking-1 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, Hunyuan Hy3 or MAI-Thinking-1?
Hunyuan Hy3 — released July 6, 2026, about 34 days after MAI-Thinking-1.
Hunyuan Hy3 vs MAI-Thinking-1
Tencent · China | Microsoft · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
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. Pick MAI-Thinking-1 for very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%) or microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without openai distillation. Choose Hunyuan Hy3 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; MAI-Thinking-1 if you want a managed API.
Hunyuan Hy3 (Tencent, China) and MAI-Thinking-1 (Microsoft, US) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Hunyuan Hy3 is a 295B Apache-2.0 open MoE that reaches frontier reasoning quality while running at roughly 21B active-parameter cost. MAI-Thinking-1 is microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. Their biggest split is open vs. closed weights, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.
Key differences at a glance
▸Cost model: Hunyuan Hy3 ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
▸Context window: both advertise 256K (~384 pages). Tie on paper — test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
▸Recency: Hunyuan Hy3 is the newer model by about 34 days (released July 6, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
▸Ecosystem: this is a China-vs-US matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Hunyuan Hy3
MAI-Thinking-1
Provider
Tencent (China)
Microsoft (US)
Released
July 6, 2026
June 2, 2026
Context window
256K (~384 pages)
256K (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)
Open weight (self-host / free)
Not published
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
No — API only
Modalities
text, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Frontier-level reported reasoning and science (GPQA Diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost
Hunyuan Hy3
A core design strength of Hunyuan Hy3.
Runs a 295B model at the cost of a 21B — only 21B parameters active per token
Hunyuan Hy3
A core design strength of Hunyuan Hy3.
Clean, unrestricted Apache-2.0 license with no geographic carve-out
Hunyuan Hy3
A core design strength of Hunyuan Hy3.
Very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%)
MAI-Thinking-1
A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation
MAI-Thinking-1
A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class
MAI-Thinking-1
A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Which should you pick?
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Hunyuan Hy3
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; MAI-Thinking-1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is frontier-level reported reasoning and science (gpqa diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost
→ Hunyuan Hy3
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%)
→ MAI-Thinking-1
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ MAI-Thinking-1 or Hunyuan Hy3
Origin (China vs US) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
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 are real: 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.
MAI-Thinking-1: where it fits
Microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. Released June 2, 2026 by Microsoft, it is built for very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%), microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation, efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class, and competitive with Claude Opus 4.6 on SWE-Bench Pro (vendor-reported).
Its trade-offs: closed and in private preview — no open weights, no published pricing, thin availability, and benchmarks are largely self-reported.
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. MAI-Thinking-1 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 Hunyuan Hy3 and MAI-Thinking-1 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 Hunyuan Hy3 or MAI-Thinking-1 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, Hunyuan Hy3 leans toward frontier-level reported reasoning and science (gpqa diamond 90.4) at low active-parameter cost while MAI-Thinking-1 leans toward very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Hunyuan Hy3 or MAI-Thinking-1?
Hunyuan Hy3 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. 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?
Both advertise 256K (~384 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both Hunyuan Hy3 and MAI-Thinking-1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Hunyuan Hy3, MAI-Thinking-1 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, Hunyuan Hy3 or MAI-Thinking-1?
Hunyuan Hy3 — released July 6, 2026, about 34 days after MAI-Thinking-1.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.