Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.7
93
Holo3-122B-A10B
78
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #2 · Holo3-122B-A10B unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Holo3-122B-A10B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+4.0 difference
Claude Opus 4.7
Holo3-122B-A10B
$5 / $25
$0.4 / $3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
64K
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Holo3-122B-A10B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 93 to 78. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Holo3-122B-A10B. That is roughly 8.3x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 64K for Holo3-122B-A10B.
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 93 to 78. 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.