Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Holo3-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported); Holo3-35B-A3B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and Holo3-35B-A3B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 31 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 1 to Holo3-35B-A3B.
Updated July 17, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- GLM-4.7 only
- 31
- Holo3-35B-A3B only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.7 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Holo3-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 74 to 60.98. 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 45.7.
GLM-4.7 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. GLM-4.7 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.7 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.782 tok/s | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.71.10 s | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.7200K | Holo3-35B-A3B64K | GLM-4.7 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticHolo3-35B-A3B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 41% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 52% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 15.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 25.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.95% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1165 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 82.6% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.8% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | 84.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 45.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 31.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | 89.4% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 24.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 25.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -34.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 29.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 90.3% | — | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1260 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 67.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.7 or Holo3-35B-A3B?
Holo3-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 74 to 60.98.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-4.7 or Holo3-35B-A3B?
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 45.7. GLM-4.7 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.