Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Composer 2.5
82
Holo3-35B-A3B
74
Pick Composer 2.5 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.
Agentic
+13.3 difference
Composer 2.5
Holo3-35B-A3B
$0.5 / $2.5
$null / $null
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200K
64K
Pick Composer 2.5 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.
Composer 2.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 82 to 74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Composer 2.5 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. Composer 2.5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
Composer 2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 82 to 74.
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 69.3. Composer 2.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.