Skip to main content

Holo3-122B-A10B vs Qwen3.5 397B

Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Holo3-122B-A10B

75

VS

Qwen3.5 397B

64

1 categoriesvs0 categories

Verified leaderboard positions: Holo3-122B-A10B unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #15

Pick Holo3-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 128K context window.

Category Radar

Head-to-Head by Category

Category Breakdown

Agentic

Holo3-122B-A10B
78.9vs56.2

+22.7 difference

Operational Comparison

Holo3-122B-A10B

Qwen3.5 397B

Price (per 1M tokens)

$null / $null

$0.6 / $3.6

Speed

N/A

96 t/s

Latency (TTFT)

N/A

2.44s

Context Window

64K

128K

Quick Verdict

Pick Holo3-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 128K context window.

Holo3-122B-A10B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 75 to 64. 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 56.2.

Qwen3.5 397B gives you the larger context window at 128K, compared with 64K for Holo3-122B-A10B.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Holo3-122B-A10B or Qwen3.5 397B?

Holo3-122B-A10B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 64.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Holo3-122B-A10B or Qwen3.5 397B?

Holo3-122B-A10B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 56.2. Qwen3.5 397B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: May 13, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.