Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Holo3-122B-A10B
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-5.1 #18 (Supported); Holo3-122B-A10B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and Holo3-122B-A10B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 1 to Holo3-122B-A10B.
Updated July 18, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- GLM-5.1 only
- 36
- Holo3-122B-A10B only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. GLM-5.1 makes more sense if you need the larger 203K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; Holo3-122B-A10B is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
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
GLM-5.1 and Holo3-122B-A10B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
GLM-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Holo3-122B-A10B. GLM-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Holo3-122B-A10B 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-5.1 gives you the larger context window at 203K, compared with 64K for Holo3-122B-A10B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 | Holo3-122B-A10B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | Holo3-122B-A10B$0.4 input / $3 output | Holo3-122B-A10B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.1Not available | Holo3-122B-A10BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.1Not available | Holo3-122B-A10BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.1203K | Holo3-122B-A10B64K | GLM-5.1 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticHolo3-122B-A10B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Holo3-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.5% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 68% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 68.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.9% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 97.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 37.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 60.11% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1257 | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Holo3-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 86.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 28.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.4% | — | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Holo3-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1309 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Holo3-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.3% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Holo3-122B-A10B?
GLM-5.1 and Holo3-122B-A10B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.1 or Holo3-122B-A10B?
Holo3-122B-A10B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 65.4. GLM-5.1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.