Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
90
Holo3-122B-A10B
75
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #5 · Holo3-122B-A10B unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Holo3-122B-A10B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Agentic
+4.0 difference
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Holo3-122B-A10B
$5 / $25
$null / $null
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
64K
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Holo3-122B-A10B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 90 to 75. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Holo3-122B-A10B 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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 64K for Holo3-122B-A10B.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 90 to 75. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 78% and 78.8%.
Holo3-122B-A10B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 74.9. 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.