Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.5
76
Holo3-122B-A10B
100
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #13 · Holo3-122B-A10B unranked
Pick Holo3-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.5 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window.
Agentic
+16.4 difference
Claude Opus 4.5
Holo3-122B-A10B
$5 / $25
$0.4 / $3
46 t/s
N/A
1.01s
N/A
200K
64K
Pick Holo3-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.5 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window.
Holo3-122B-A10B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 76. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Holo3-122B-A10B's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 78.9 against 62.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 66.3% to 78.8%.
Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Holo3-122B-A10B. That is roughly 8.3x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 64K for Holo3-122B-A10B.
Holo3-122B-A10B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 76. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 66.3% and 78.8%.
Holo3-122B-A10B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 62.5. 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.