Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Holo3-35B-A3B
~78
Winner · 1/8 categoriesQwen3.6 Plus
69
0/8 categoriesHolo3-35B-A3B· Qwen3.6 Plus
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Holo3-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 78 to 69. 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 62. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 77.8% to 62.5%.
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 Qwen3.6 Plus. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6 Plus 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. Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| AgenticHolo3-35B-A3B wins | ||
| OSWorld-Verified | 77.8% | 62.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | — | 61.6% |
| Claw-Eval | — | 58.7% |
| QwenClawBench | — | 57.2% |
| QwenWebBench | — | 1502 |
| TAU3-Bench | — | 70.7% |
| VITA-Bench | — | 44.3% |
| DeepPlanning | — | 41.5% |
| Toolathlon | — | 39.8% |
| MCP Atlas | — | 48.2% |
| MCP-Tasks | — | 74.1% |
| WideResearch | — | 74.3% |
| Coding | ||
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.8% |
| SWE-bench Pro | — | 56.6% |
| SWE Multilingual | — | 73.8% |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | — | 87.1% |
| NL2Repo | — | 37.9% |
| Multimodal & Grounded | ||
| MMMU | — | 86.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | — | 78.8% |
| RealWorldQA | — | 85.4% |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | — | 91.2% |
| Video-MME (with subtitle) | — | 87.8% |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle) | — | 84.2% |
| MathVision | — | 88.0% |
| We-Math | — | 89.0% |
| DynaMath | — | 88.0% |
| MStar | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleVQA | — | 67.3% |
| ChatCVQA | — | 81.5% |
| MMLongBench-Doc | — | 62.0% |
| CC-OCR | — | 83.4% |
| AI2D_TEST | — | 94.4% |
| CountBench | — | 97.6% |
| RefCOCO (avg) | — | 93.5% |
| ODINW13 | — | 51.8% |
| ERQA | — | 65.7% |
| VideoMMMU | — | 84.0% |
| MLVU (M-Avg) | — | 86.7% |
| ScreenSpot Pro | — | 68.2% |
| Reasoning | ||
| AI-Needle | — | 68.3% |
| LongBench v2 | — | 62% |
| Knowledge | ||
| GPQA | — | 90.4% |
| SuperGPQA | — | 71.6% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 88.5% |
| MMLU-Redux | — | 94.5% |
| C-Eval | — | 93.3% |
| HLE | — | 28.8% |
| Instruction Following | ||
| IFEval | — | 94.3% |
| IFBench | — | 74.2% |
| Multilingual | ||
| MMLU-ProX | — | 84.7% |
| NOVA-63 | — | 57.9% |
| INCLUDE | — | 85.1% |
| PolyMath | — | 77.4% |
| VWT2k-lite | — | 84.3% |
| MAXIFE | — | 88.2% |
| Mathematics | ||
| AIME26 | — | 95.3% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 96.7% |
| HMMT Nov 2025 | — | 94.6% |
| HMMT Feb 2026 | — | 87.8% |
| MMAnswerBench | — | 83.8% |
Holo3-35B-A3B is ahead overall, 78 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 77.8% and 62.5%.
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.8 versus 62. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.