Holo3-35B-A3B vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)

Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 128K context window.

Holo3-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 78 to 55. 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 77.8 against 45.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 77.8% to 43%.

Holo3-35B-A3B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.25 input / $1.80 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning). That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) 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. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) gives you the larger context window at 128K, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.