Compare/Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B vs Hy3

Qwen2.5 Instruct 72BvsHy3

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Alibaba

Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B

Input
$0.47/M
Output
$0.49/M
Speed
TTFT
Tencent

Hy3

Input
$0.14/M
Output
$0.55/M
Speed
67 tok/s
TTFT
2.88s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Hy3
Faster (tok/s)
Hy3
Lower Latency
Hy3
Benchmarks (0-2)
Hy3

Pricing Comparison

MetricQwen2.5 Instruct 72BHy3
Input ($/M tokens)$0.47$0.14
Output ($/M tokens)$0.49$0.55
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B$0.52
Hy3$0.20

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
Hy3
67 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
Hy3
2.88s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Hy3 takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 0.9× the per-million-token cost, Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B is strongest on Intelligence Index (9.4). Hy3 leads on Coding Index (58.8), Intelligence Index (42.2).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Alibaba and Tencent sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Alibaba tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Tencent often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B costs $21.45 ($257/year); Hy3 costs $12.45 ($149/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B ≈ $3.33/run, Hy3 ≈ $1.80/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B ≈ $143/run, Hy3 ≈ $83/run. Hy3 becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
9.442.2
Coding Index
58.8
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B0 wins
2 winsHy3

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B or Hy3?

Hy3 is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.24/M tokens vs $0.47/M for Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Hy3 wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Hy3 generates tokens faster at 67 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, Hy3 has lower time-to-first-token (2.88s vs —s).

When should I use Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B vs Hy3?

Choose based on your priorities: Hy3 for lower cost, Hy3 for stronger benchmark performance, and Hy3 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.