Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); Nemotron 3 Nano 30B #98 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B share 11 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 48 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 4 to Nemotron 3 Nano 30B.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 48
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude Opus 4.5 is priced at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Nemotron 3 Nano 30B. Claude Opus 4.5 has the larger context window at 200K, compared with 32K for Nemotron 3 Nano 30B.
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 Opus 4.5 | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano 30BNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano 30BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano 30BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano 30BNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano 30BNot measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano 30BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano 30BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano 30BNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B$0 input / $0 output | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B152 tok/s | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B1.90 s | Claude Opus 4.5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B32K | Claude Opus 4.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.6% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 23.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 26.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 42.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 76.4% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 50.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86.3% | 40.9% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.23% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 32.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 484 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 2.0% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.9% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 29.6% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 14.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 96.6% | — | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | 14.2% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | 75.7% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | 10.2% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | -51.6% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | 17.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | 82.9% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 92.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 85.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 84.0% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 20.690% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 68.5% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 67.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1277 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Opus 4.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B today?
Claude Opus 4.5: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Nemotron 3 Nano 30B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.