Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Holo3-122B-A10B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.6 Sol #3 (Supported); Holo3-122B-A10B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.6 Sol and Holo3-122B-A10B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 46 results are unique to GPT-5.6 Sol; 1 to Holo3-122B-A10B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- GPT-5.6 Sol only
- 46
- Holo3-122B-A10B only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. GPT-5.6 Sol makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; Holo3-122B-A10B is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
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
GPT-5.6 Sol and Holo3-122B-A10B 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.
GPT-5.6 Sol is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Holo3-122B-A10B. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.6 Sol 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. GPT-5.6 Sol gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 64K for Holo3-122B-A10B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Sol | Holo3-122B-A10B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.6 Sol$5 input / $30 output | Holo3-122B-A10B$0.4 input / $3 output | Holo3-122B-A10B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.6 SolNot available | Holo3-122B-A10BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.6 SolNot available | Holo3-122B-A10BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.6 Sol1M | Holo3-122B-A10B64K | GPT-5.6 Sol lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.6 Sol wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Holo3-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 91.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 62.6% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 84.5% | — | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | 33.7% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 58% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 54.0% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 85.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 61.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1736 | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1501 | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 56.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 33.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 51.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 87.2% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 65.9% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 88% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Holo3-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 91.9% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 67.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VulcanBench v3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 77.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 56.1% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Holo3-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 60.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 33.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 58.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 47.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 21.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 58.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.8% | — | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Holo3-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-5.6 Sol or Holo3-122B-A10B?
GPT-5.6 Sol and Holo3-122B-A10B 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, GPT-5.6 Sol or Holo3-122B-A10B?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 92 versus 78.9. Holo3-122B-A10B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.