Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Holo3-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Holo3-35B-A3B unranked
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Holo3-35B-A3B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 52 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 0 to Holo3-35B-A3B.
Updated July 12, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 52
- Holo3-35B-A3B only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Holo3-35B-A3B 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.
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 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 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 4.8 | Δ | Holo3-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | Margin→ 2.3 | Holo3-35B-A3B82.6 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.876.4 | MarginNo overlap | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | MarginNo overlap | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | MarginNo overlap | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | 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 83.4%B 82.6%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 0.8OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 83.4%; Holo3-35B-A3B scored 82.6%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | Holo3-35B-A3B64K | Claude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticHolo3-35B-A3B wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 93.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 83.4% | 82.6% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Finance Agent v2Source | 53.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1600 | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 82.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 72.97% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 47.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 94.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 55.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 21.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1354 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 44.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 7.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 27.6% | — | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 69.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 38.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 58.4% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 58.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCodeSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 55.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 27.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 46.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 35.9% | — | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 62.2% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Holo3-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 83.4% and 82.6%.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Holo3-35B-A3B?
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 80.3. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.