Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Holo3-122B-A10B

Pick Holo3-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Holo3-122B-A10B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 85. 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 74.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 78% to 78.8%.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Holo3-122B-A10B 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. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 64K for Holo3-122B-A10B.