Model comparison
GLM-5 vs Holo3-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5 #16; Holo3-35B-A3B unranked
Evidence parity. GLM-5 and Holo3-35B-A3B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 50 results are unique to GLM-5; 1 to Holo3-35B-A3B.
Updated July 14, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- GLM-5 only
- 50
- Holo3-35B-A3B only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-5 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window.
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 provisional aggregate, 74 to 63. 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 56.2.
GLM-5 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-5 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-574 tok/s | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-51.64 s | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5200K | Holo3-35B-A3B64K | GLM-5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticHolo3-35B-A3B wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.7% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 54.1% | — | Not comparable |
| TAU3-BenchSource | 65.6% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 14.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 38% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 31.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 60.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 69.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 98.2% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 14.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.99% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 82.6% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 72.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 55.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 62.8% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 74.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 86% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 86.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 66.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 50.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 39.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 27.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 2.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 34.0% | — | Not comparable |
Math8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 97.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 96.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 86.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 82.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 16.434% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.100% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Holo3-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1282 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-5 or Holo3-35B-A3B?
Holo3-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 63.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5 or Holo3-35B-A3B?
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 56.2. GLM-5 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.