Model comparison
Holo3-35B-A3B vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Holo3-35B-A3B unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Holo3-35B-A3B and Qwen3.7 Plus share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Holo3-35B-A3B; 68 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Holo3-35B-A3B only
- 0
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 68
- 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; Qwen3.7 Plus is the better fit if you need the larger 1M 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 Qwen3.7 Plus finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Qwen3.7 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. Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Holo3-35B-A3B82.6 | Margin← 10.9 | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Coding | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Reasoning | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Knowledge | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Math | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Multilingual | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Multimodal | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
| Inst. Following | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 82.6%B 73.3%Winner: Holo3-35B-A3BΔ 9.3OSWorld-Verified: Holo3-35B-A3B scored 82.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 73.3%. 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 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Holo3-35B-A3B64K | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Qwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticHolo3-35B-A3B wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 82.6% | 73.3% | Holo3-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 45.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 20.8% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 22.4% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 21.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 936 | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 51.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 55.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 45.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 39.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 90.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 33.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 22.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 25.5% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 85.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMSearch-PlusSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 80.5% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1288 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Holo3-35B-A3B or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Holo3-35B-A3B and Qwen3.7 Plus are tied on the BenchAlign 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 71.7. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.