Holo3-35B-A3B vs Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 128K context window.

Holo3-35B-A3B finishes one point ahead overall, 78 to 77. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.

Holo3-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 77.8 against 74.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 77.8% to 70%.

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 Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning). That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5 397B (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. Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) gives you the larger context window at 128K, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.