Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Claude Sonnet 4.5

Anthropic

53.4/100

Estimated · Public rank #99

90% interval 41.9–64.9

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Holo3-122B-A10B

Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Holo3-122B-A10B

H Company

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Sonnet 4.5

    Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Holo3-122B-A10B

    Holo3-122B-A10B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Holo3-122B-A10B

    Holo3-122B-A10B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Holo3-122B-A10B does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Holo3-122B-A10B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
10
Holo3-122B-A10B only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Sonnet 4.5
55.4
Holo3-122B-A10B
78.9
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.5
77.2
Holo3-122B-A10B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.5
13.6
Holo3-122B-A10B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.5
83.4
Holo3-122B-A10B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.5
11.2
Holo3-122B-A10B
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not measured
Holo3-122B-A10B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not measured
Holo3-122B-A10B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not measured
Holo3-122B-A10B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Sonnet 4.5
$0.0105
Fits in one request
Holo3-122B-A10B
$0.0019
Fits in one request

Holo3-122B-A10B has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 4.5
$0.195
Fits in one request
Holo3-122B-A10B
$0.029
Fits in one request

Holo3-122B-A10B has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 4.5
$0.81
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Holo3-122B-A10B
$0.118
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Holo3-122B-A10B does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Holo3-122B-A10B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

200K

Holo3-122B-A10B

64K

API model ID

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Not sourced

Holo3-122B-A10B

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Not published

Holo3-122B-A10B

Not published

Documented inputs

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Not sourced

Holo3-122B-A10B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Not sourced

Holo3-122B-A10B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Not sourced

Holo3-122B-A10B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Holo3-122B-A10B

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Proprietary

Holo3-122B-A10B

Proprietary

License

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Proprietary

Holo3-122B-A10B

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Sonnet 4.5

2025-09-01

Holo3-122B-A10B

2026-03-31

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.029. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.118.
Context tradeoff
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the larger documented window (200K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence11 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 4.550%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 4.561.4%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B78.8%
    Source

    Holo3-122B-A10B leads this result

  • VITA-Bench

    Claude Sonnet 4.517.0%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Claude Sonnet 4.548.51%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Sonnet 4.527.7%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Sonnet 4.577.2%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Sonnet 4.513.6%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Sonnet 4.583.4%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2025

    Claude Sonnet 4.587%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Sonnet 4.513.495%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Sonnet 4.54.167%
    Source
    Holo3-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Holo3-122B-A10B?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Holo3-122B-A10B?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Holo3-122B-A10B?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Holo3-122B-A10B?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude Sonnet 4.5 and $0.0019 on Holo3-122B-A10B; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.029; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.118. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Holo3-122B-A10B does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Holo3-122B-A10B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Holo3-122B-A10B?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the larger documented context window: 200K, compared with 64K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 13, 2026

Watch Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Holo3-122B-A10B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.