Model comparison
Celeris-1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
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: Celeris-1 unranked (Not scored); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B #151 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Celeris-1 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Celeris-1; 28 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Celeris-1 only
- 0
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 28
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Celeris-1 makes more sense if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
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
Celeris-1 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B 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.
Celeris-1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Celeris-1 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. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 8K for Celeris-1.
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 | Celeris-1 | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Celeris-175.9 | Margin→ 0.4 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Coding | Celeris-1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Multimodal | Celeris-1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Inst. Following | Celeris-1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 75.9%B 77.3%Winner: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BΔ 1.4MMLU-Pro: Celeris-1 scored 75.9%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 77.3%. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Celeris-1$2 input / $6 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Celeris-1Not available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Celeris-1Not available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Celeris-18K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 75.9% | 77.3% | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads |
| GPQASource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 14.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 46.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 5.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -56.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 83.1% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLongBench-DocSource | — | 57.5% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 53.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Celeris-1 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Celeris-1 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B 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 knowledge tasks, Celeris-1 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 75.9. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.