Llama 3 8B Lunaris vs Hy-MT2-30B-A3B
Llama 3 8B Lunaris costs 5.9x less per output token than Hy-MT2-30B-A3B ($0.05 vs $0.295 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.05
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.295
Llama 3 8B Lunaris or Hy-MT2-30B-A3B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Llama 3 8B Lunaris for output tokens 5.9x cheaper ($0.05 vs $0.295 per million).
No benchmark has tested either model yet, so price and context are the only way to compare them.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 8K tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Llama 3 8B Lunaris
Llama 3 8B Lunaris $0.0001, Hy-MT2-30B-A3B $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Llama 3 8B Lunaris not benchmarked, Hy-MT2-30B-A3B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- Llama 3 8B Lunaris $0.05 against Hy-MT2-30B-A3B $0.295 per million output tokens, 5.9x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 8K tokens.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Llama 3 8B Lunaris costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Llama 3 8B Lunaris costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Llama 3 8B Lunaris costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Sao10K Llama 3 8B Lunaris | Tencent Hy-MT2-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Sao10K | Tencent |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | August 13, 2024 | August 20, 2026 |
| Context window | 8K | 8K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.04 | $0.074 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.05 | $0.295 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Llama 3 8B Lunaris better than Hy-MT2-30B-A3B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3 8B Lunaris for output tokens 5.9x cheaper ($0.05 vs $0.295 per million).
Which is cheaper, Llama 3 8B Lunaris or Hy-MT2-30B-A3B?
Llama 3 8B Lunaris costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.05 per million output tokens; Hy-MT2-30B-A3B costs $0.074 and $0.295. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3 8B Lunaris or Hy-MT2-30B-A3B?
Neither: both take 8K tokens.
Has any benchmark tested both Llama 3 8B Lunaris and Hy-MT2-30B-A3B?
No benchmark has tested either model yet, so price and context are the only way to compare them. Data as of October 23, 2026.