Model comparison
Holo3-122B-A10B vs Step 3.7 Flash
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: Holo3-122B-A10B unranked (Not scored); Step 3.7 Flash #110 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Holo3-122B-A10B and Step 3.7 Flash share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Holo3-122B-A10B; 29 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Holo3-122B-A10B only
- 1
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 29
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Holo3-122B-A10B makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Step 3.7 Flash is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 256K 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
Holo3-122B-A10B and Step 3.7 Flash 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.
Holo3-122B-A10B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.40 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 2.6x on output cost alone. Step 3.7 Flash 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. Step 3.7 Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 | Holo3-122B-A10B | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Holo3-122B-A10B$0.4 input / $3 output | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | Step 3.7 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Holo3-122B-A10BNot available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Holo3-122B-A10BNot available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Holo3-122B-A10B64K | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Step 3.7 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticHolo3-122B-A10B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-122B-A10B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 51.57% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.5% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 98.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1017 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-122B-A10B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -37.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 25.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-122B-A10B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Holo3-122B-A10B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Holo3-122B-A10B and Step 3.7 Flash 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, Holo3-122B-A10B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Holo3-122B-A10B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 66.4. Step 3.7 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.