Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #20 (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 Opus 4.6 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 16 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 30 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 13 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 30
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 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.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.76 to 43.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 68.1 against 32. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 91.3% to 72.2%. 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 4.6 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 4.6 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. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
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 4.6 | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | Margin← 36.1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.1 | Margin→ 7.2 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | Margin← 1.0 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 91.3%B 72.2%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 19.1GPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 91.3%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 72.2%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 82%B 77.3%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 4.7MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 82%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 77.3%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 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 Opus 4.640 tok/s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Claude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 45.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | — | 47.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 465 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.6 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 27.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 32% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 13.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | 72.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | 72.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | 77.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | 14.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 46.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 5.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | -56.0% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 14.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 83.1% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
Math4 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.6 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | 51.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 83.1% | 57.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 64.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 72.5% | 53.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1319 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLongBench-DocSource | — | 57.5% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 76.3% | 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 |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.76 to 43.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 91.3% and 72.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 69.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.1 versus 32. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.3 versus 76.3. Inside this category, ScreenSpot Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.