Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Holo3-122B-A10B
75
Qwen3.5-27B
63
Verified leaderboard positions: Holo3-122B-A10B unranked · Qwen3.5-27B #16
Pick Holo3-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Agentic
+27.3 difference
Holo3-122B-A10B
Qwen3.5-27B
$null / $null
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
64K
262K
Pick Holo3-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Holo3-122B-A10B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 75 to 63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Holo3-122B-A10B's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 78.9 against 51.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 78.8% to 56.2%.
Qwen3.5-27B 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. Qwen3.5-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 64K for Holo3-122B-A10B.
Holo3-122B-A10B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 78.8% and 56.2%.
Holo3-122B-A10B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 51.6. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.