Skip to main content

Model comparison

Holo3-35B-A3B vs Kimi K3

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
Moonshot AI
80.96/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Holo3-35B-A3B unranked (Not scored); Kimi K3 #4 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Holo3-35B-A3B and Kimi K3 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Holo3-35B-A3B; 57 to Kimi K3.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
Holo3-35B-A3B only
1
Kimi K3 only
57
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Holo3-35B-A3B makes more sense if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Kimi K3 is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1.05M context window.

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 Kimi K3 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.

Kimi K3 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. Kimi K3 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, 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-A3BKimi K3Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensHolo3-35B-A3BNot availableKimi K3$3 input / $15 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondHolo3-35B-A3BNot availableKimi K3Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenHolo3-35B-A3BNot availableKimi K3Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensHolo3-35B-A3B64KKimi K31.05MKimi K3 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticKimi K3 wins
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BKimi K3Result
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 82.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88.3%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 91.2%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 95.0%Not comparable
Toolathlon-VerifiedSource 73.2%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 84.2%Not comparable
AutomationBenchSource 30.8%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 52.9%Not comparable
APEX-AgentsSource 37.6%Not comparable
SpreadsheetBench 2Source 34.8%Not comparable
DECK-BenchSource 73.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 50.1%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 59.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1679Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1543Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 52.7%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 45.3%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 94.6%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 33.4%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 85%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 41.3%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 47.7%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BKimi K3Result
deepSweSource 67.5%Not comparable
FrontierSWESource 81.2%Not comparable
ProgramBenchSource 77.8%Not comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2Source 72.9%Not comparable
sweMarathonSource 42%Not comparable
PostTrain BenchSource 36.6%Not comparable
MLS-Bench LiteSource 48.3%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 76.2%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 58.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BKimi K3Result
AA-LCRSource 74.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 23.4%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BKimi K3Result
GPQASource 93.5%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 93.5%Not comparable
HLESource 56%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 43.5%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 57.1%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 93.5%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 44.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 18.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.0%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 50.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkHolo3-35B-A3BKimi K3Result
OfficeQA ProSource 63.3%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 81.6%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 83.4%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 84.8%Not comparable
CharXivSource 91.3%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 94.3%Not comparable
MathVision w/ PythonSource 97.8%Not comparable
BabyVision w/ PythonSource 85.7%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource 23.0%Not comparable
ZeroBench w/ PythonSource 41.0%Not comparable
WorldVQA ForceAnswerSource 51.0%Not comparable
OmniDocBenchSource 91.1%Not comparable
PerceptionBenchSource 58.5%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 80.5%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1386Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Holo3-35B-A3B or Kimi K3?

Holo3-35B-A3B and Kimi K3 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 Kimi K3?

Kimi K3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 82.6. Holo3-35B-A3B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 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.