Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus 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: Claude 4.1 Opus #149 (Supported); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B #159 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 28 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 3
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 28
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude 4.1 Opus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 256K context window.
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
Claude 4.1 Opus has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 44.78 versus 43.32. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Claude 4.1 Opus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 74.5 against 32.
Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 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 Claude 4.1 Opus 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 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus.
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 | Claude 4.1 Opus | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus74.5 | Margin← 42.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Inst. Following | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 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 | Claude 4.1 Opus29 tok/s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus1.66 s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus200K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 28.2% | 14.9% | Claude 4.1 Opus leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 72.2% | 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 | Claude 4.1 Opus | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1202 | — | Not comparable |
| 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, Claude 4.1 Opus or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Claude 4.1 Opus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 44.78 to 43.32.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 32. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.