Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.8
93
Holo3-35B-A3B
100
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3 · Holo3-35B-A3B unranked
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.8 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Agentic
+2.5 difference
Claude Opus 4.8
Holo3-35B-A3B
$5 / $25
$null / $null
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
64K
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.8 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Holo3-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 93. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Holo3-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 82.6 against 80.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 83.4% to 82.6%.
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.
Holo3-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 93. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 83.4% and 82.6%.
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 80.1. 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.