Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

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.
55.77/100
Margin
12.5pts
← winning
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #82 (Estimated); 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 Haiku 4.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 29 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.

Updated July 27, 2026
Shared results
0
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
6
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
29
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 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 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

Claude Haiku 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.77 to 43.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Haiku 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.3 against 32.

Claude Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $5.00 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 Haiku 4.5 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 Haiku 4.5.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Haiku 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 outputNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 outputNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Haiku 4.5200KNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256KNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
JobBenchSource 16.0%Not comparable
OSWorldSource 47.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 45.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 0.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 465Not comparable
CodingClaude Haiku 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.3%Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source 78.3%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 32%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 27.8%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 13.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
AA-LCRSource 35.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
MMLU-ProSource 77.3%Not comparable
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
Math
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 5.903%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%Not comparable
AIME 2025Source 82.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1147Not 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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
IFBenchSource 74.2%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 63.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Claude Haiku 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.77 to 43.32.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 32. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 27, 2026

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.