Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Celeris-1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Updated October 20, 2026. Rank says Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the higher public point estimate, 32.11 versus 28.36. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Model B
NVIDIA
32.11/100
Estimated · Public rank #172
Conditional range 17.8–46.5
- Shared results
- 1
- Celeris-1 only
- 3
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 16
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Estimated: Celeris-1 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Celeris-1 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Celeris-1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
10.8Celeris-115.3Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 Celeris-1 only
1 Shared
16 Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
MMLU-ProKnowledge
Normalized gap 1.4Celeris-1:75.9%Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B:77.3%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Celeris-1
- 28.3
- Supported · #163/187
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 32.5
- Supported · #145/187
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads · intervals overlap
Coding
Directional only- Celeris-1
- 10.8
- Estimated · #143/152
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 15.3
- Estimated · #135/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- 8.0
- Estimated · #126/131
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- 51.1
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 52.3
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 43.8
- #51/55
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 75.4
- #67/149
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Celeris-1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 28.3Supported · #163/187 | 32.5Supported · #145/187 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 3 public rows | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 10.8Estimated · #143/152 | 15.3Estimated · #135/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 8.0Estimated · #126/131 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 51.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 52.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 43.8#51/55 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 75.4#67/149 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Celeris-1
- $0.00055
- Does not fit in one request
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Celeris-1
- $0.0121
- Does not fit in one request
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Celeris-1
- $0.051
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Celeris-1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationCeleris-1Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Celeris-1
131,072 tokens
Celeris-1 model guideNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
256K
API model ID
Celeris-1
celeris-1
Celeris-1 model guideNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Celeris-1
Not published
Celeris API pricingNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Celeris-1
text, image
Celeris-1 model guideNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Celeris-1
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Celeris-1
Generally Available · Celeris OpenAI-compatible API (United States)
Celeris availabilityNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Celeris-1
Non-Reasoning
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Reasoning
Weight access
Celeris-1
Proprietary
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Open Weight
License
Celeris-1
Proprietary
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Open Weight
Release date
Celeris-1
2026-07-22
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
2026-04-28
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the higher public point estimate, 32.11 versus 28.36. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the larger documented window (256K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Celeris-1 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the higher public point estimate, 32.11 versus 28.36. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Celeris-1 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 15.3 to 10.8. Celeris-1 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Celeris-1 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Celeris-1 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Celeris-1 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 131,072 tokens.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence20 rows
Agentic
Coding
Reasoning
DROP
Celeris-181.4%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
ParseBench
Celeris-1—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B48.51%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU
Celeris-1—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B70.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLongBench-Doc
Celeris-1—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Celeris-1—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Celeris-1—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
Celeris-1—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%SourceNot directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
Celeris-1—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B88.5%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Celeris-1—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B90.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Instruction following
Math
20 public results · 1 shared
Watch Celeris-1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,600+ readers.
Last updated October 20, 2026