Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Mythos 5
99
Holo3-35B-A3B
100
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 · Holo3-35B-A3B unranked
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Mythos 5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M+ context window.
Agentic
+4.4 difference
Claude Mythos 5
Holo3-35B-A3B
$10 / $50
$null / $null
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M+
64K
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Mythos 5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M+ context window.
Holo3-35B-A3B finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 99. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.
Claude Mythos 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Holo3-35B-A3B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Mythos 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
Holo3-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 99. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 85% and 82.6%.
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 87 versus 82.6. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.