Model comparison
Holo3-35B-A3B vs Muse Spark 1.1
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Holo3-35B-A3B unranked (Not scored); Muse Spark 1.1 #6 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Holo3-35B-A3B and Muse Spark 1.1 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Holo3-35B-A3B; 38 to Muse Spark 1.1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Holo3-35B-A3B only
- 0
- Muse Spark 1.1 only
- 38
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Holo3-35B-A3B makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Muse Spark 1.1 is the better fit if you need the larger 1M context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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 Muse Spark 1.1 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.
Muse Spark 1.1 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. Muse Spark 1.1 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Holo3-35B-A3B | Δ | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Holo3-35B-A3B82.6 | Margin← 2.2 | Muse Spark 1.180.4 |
| Coding | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Muse Spark 1.161.5 |
| Knowledge | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Muse Spark 1.162.1 |
| Multimodal | Holo3-35B-A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Muse Spark 1.188.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 82.6%B 80.8%Winner: Holo3-35B-A3BΔ 1.8OSWorld-Verified: Holo3-35B-A3B scored 82.6%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 80.8%. Holo3-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Holo3-35B-A3B | Muse Spark 1.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Muse Spark 1.1Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Muse Spark 1.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Muse Spark 1.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Holo3-35B-A3B64K | Muse Spark 1.11M | Muse Spark 1.1 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticHolo3-35B-A3B wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Muse Spark 1.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 82.6% | 80.8% | Holo3-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 80% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 88.1% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 75.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 59.0% | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 53.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 54.7% | Not comparable |
| CybenchSource | — | 92.9% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 0.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 37.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1374 | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 863 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 42.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 93.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 25.2% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 77.9% | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Muse Spark 1.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | — | 62.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 50.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 89.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 45.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 40.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 38.1% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Holo3-35B-A3B or Muse Spark 1.1?
Holo3-35B-A3B and Muse Spark 1.1 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 Muse Spark 1.1?
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 80.4. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.