Model comparison
Holo3-35B-A3B vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Holo3-35B-A3B unranked; Kimi K2.6 #13
Evidence parity. Holo3-35B-A3B and Kimi K2.6 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Holo3-35B-A3B; 59 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Holo3-35B-A3B only
- 0
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 59
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Holo3-35B-A3B makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Kimi K2.6 is the better fit if you need the larger 256K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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 and Kimi K2.6 finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Kimi K2.6 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Holo3-35B-A3B 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. Kimi K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Holo3-35B-A3B | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Holo3-35B-A3B82.6 | Margin← 9.1 | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Coding | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.672.6 |
| Knowledge | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Math | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Multimodal | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.679.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 82.6%B 73.1%Winner: Holo3-35B-A3BΔ 9.5OSWorld-Verified: Holo3-35B-A3B scored 82.6%; Kimi K2.6 scored 73.1%. Holo3-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Holo3-35B-A3B | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Holo3-35B-A3B64K | Kimi K2.6256K | Kimi K2.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticHolo3-35B-A3B wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 82.6% | 73.1% | Holo3-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.7% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 50% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 55.9% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | — | 95.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 34.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1190 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 28.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.82% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 4.6% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 809 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 19.6% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 38.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 31.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
Coding13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 58.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 76.7% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.7% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 37.89% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 47.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 43.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 44.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 91.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 35.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 6.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 32.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 39.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1318 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Holo3-35B-A3B or Kimi K2.6?
Holo3-35B-A3B and Kimi K2.6 are tied on the provisional overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Holo3-35B-A3B or Kimi K2.6?
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 73.5. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
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.