Holo3-122B-A10B vs Qwen3.5-27B

Pick Holo3-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 262K context window.

Holo3-122B-A10B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 62. 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 51.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 78.8% to 56.2%.

Holo3-122B-A10B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.40 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-27B 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. Qwen3.5-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 64K for Holo3-122B-A10B.