Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Holo3-35B-A3B
75
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
65
Verified leaderboard positions: Holo3-35B-A3B unranked · Qwen3.5-122B-A10B #8
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Agentic
+26.5 difference
Holo3-35B-A3B
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
$null / $null
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
64K
262K
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Holo3-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 75 to 65. 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 82.6 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 82.6% to 58%.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 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. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
Holo3-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 65. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 82.6% and 58%.
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 56.1. 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.