// head_to_head
Hy-MT2-1.8B vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
Hy-MT2-1.8B is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.
Hy-MT2-1.8B does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
z-ai
GLM 5.3 Flash
- Blended / 1M
- $0.237
- Context
- 1.0M
- Released
- Aug 26, 2026
- Overall score
- 62.1
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Hy-MT2-1.8B | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | — | 62.1 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | — | $0.0016 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.077win | $0.237 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.044win | $0.150 |
| Output price / 1M | $0.177win | $0.500 |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | — | $0.030 |
| Context window | 8K | 1.0Mwin |
| Max output tokens | 4K | 944Kwin |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Hy-MT2-1.8B on top, GLM 5.3 Flash below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | Hy-MT2-1.8B | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $24.72/mo | $67.36/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $45.82/mo | $102.00/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $49.36/mo | $92.80/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $57.27/mo | $181.50/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $127.70/mo | $365.00/mo |
Which should you pick?
You need to fit large documents in one call
GLM 5.3 Flash
Wider context window — 1.0M against 8K.
You are cost-constrained
Hy-MT2-1.8B
Cheaper on blended list price at $0.077 per million tokens.
Hy-MT2-1.8B vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQ
Which is better, Hy-MT2-1.8B or GLM 5.3 Flash?
Hy-MT2-1.8B is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Hy-MT2-1.8B does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is Hy-MT2-1.8B cheaper than GLM 5.3 Flash?
Hy-MT2-1.8B is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Hy-MT2-1.8B lists at $0.077 per million tokens and GLM 5.3 Flash at $0.237 — Hy-MT2-1.8B is 3.1× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Hy-MT2-1.8B charges $0.044 in and $0.177 out, GLM 5.3 Flash charges $0.150 and $0.500 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Does Hy-MT2-1.8B or GLM 5.3 Flash have a bigger context window?
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger context window: 8K for Hy-MT2-1.8B against 1.0M for GLM 5.3 Flash. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.
Do Hy-MT2-1.8B and GLM 5.3 Flash support prompt caching?
GLM 5.3 Flash publishes a cached-input rate of $0.030 per million tokens against a full input rate of $0.150. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Hy-MT2-1.8B, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.