Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Holo3-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Holo3-35B-A3B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Holo3-35B-A3B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 37 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 0 to Holo3-35B-A3B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 37
- Holo3-35B-A3B only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) makes more sense if you need the larger 1M context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; Holo3-35B-A3B is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Holo3-35B-A3B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Δ | Holo3-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | Margin→ 7.5 | Holo3-35B-A3B82.6 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | MarginNo overlap | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | MarginNo overlap | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | MarginNo overlap | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | MarginNo overlap | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 78%B 82.6%Winner: Holo3-35B-A3BΔ 4.6OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%; Holo3-35B-A3B scored 82.6%. Holo3-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Holo3-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Holo3-35B-A3B64K | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticHolo3-35B-A3B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | 82.6% | Holo3-35B-A3B leads |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 46.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | — | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Holo3-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Holo3-35B-A3B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Holo3-35B-A3B?
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 75.1. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.