Claude Opus 4.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 77 to 56. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 65.9 against 53.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFBench, 58% to 74.2%. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 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 Opus 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 Opus 4.5.