Skip to main content

Model comparison

Holo3-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
H Company
N/A
No comparison
50.87/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Holo3-35B-A3B unranked (Not scored); Step 3.7 Flash #110 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Holo3-35B-A3B and Step 3.7 Flash share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Holo3-35B-A3B; 29 to Step 3.7 Flash.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
0
Holo3-35B-A3B only
1
Step 3.7 Flash only
29
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; Step 3.7 Flash is the better fit if you need the larger 256K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 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 Step 3.7 Flash 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.

Step 3.7 Flash 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. Step 3.7 Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricHolo3-35B-A3BStep 3.7 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensHolo3-35B-A3BNot availableStep 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondHolo3-35B-A3BNot availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenHolo3-35B-A3BNot availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensHolo3-35B-A3B64KStep 3.7 Flash256KStep 3.7 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticHolo3-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BStep 3.7 FlashResult
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 82.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.5%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 75.8%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 92.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 25.9%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 49.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.1%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 47.2%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 51.57%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 21.5%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1017Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 14.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BStep 3.7 FlashResult
SWE-bench ProSource 56.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.5%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 39.6%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 40.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BStep 3.7 FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 63.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 2.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BStep 3.7 FlashResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 30.3%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 80.9%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 19.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -37.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 25.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 84.4%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BStep 3.7 FlashResult
SimpleVQASource 79.2%Not comparable
V*Source 95.3%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 75.3%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1211Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BStep 3.7 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 67.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Holo3-35B-A3B or Step 3.7 Flash?

Holo3-35B-A3B and Step 3.7 Flash 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 Step 3.7 Flash?

Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 66.4. Step 3.7 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 21, 2026

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.