Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.52/100
Margin
8.5pts
← winning
60/100
3 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #8; Nemotron 3 Ultra #24

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.6 supported; Nemotron 3 Ultra not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Nemotron 3 Ultra share 21 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 27 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 18 to Nemotron 3 Ultra.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
21
Claude Opus 4.6 only
27
Nemotron 3 Ultra only
18
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Ultra only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 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 provisional aggregate, 84 to 60. 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 agentic, where it averages 73 against 51.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 83.7% to 44.4%.

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 Ultra. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Nemotron 3 Ultra 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.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.6 and Nemotron 3 Ultra
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔNemotron 3 Ultra
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0Margin← 21.7Nemotron 3 Ultra51.3
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.2Margin← 15.0Nemotron 3 Ultra54.2
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin← 9.8Nemotron 3 Ultra58.3
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Ultra61.9
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3MarginNo overlapNemotron 3 UltraNot measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Ultra83.0
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapNemotron 3 UltraNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Ultra81.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · Nemotron 3 Ultra

  1. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.7%B 44.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 39.3
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 83.7%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 44.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 53%B 26.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 26.3
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 26.7%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.4%B 56.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 9
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 56.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.8%B 71.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 8.9
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 71.9%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  5. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 82%B 86.8%
    Winner: Nemotron 3 UltraΔ 4.8
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 82%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 86.8%. Nemotron 3 Ultra wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 UltraComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputNemotron 3 Ultra$0 input / $0 outputNemotron 3 Ultra has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sNemotron 3 UltraNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sNemotron 3 UltraNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MNemotron 3 Ultra1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 UltraResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%56.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
BrowseCompSource 83.7%44.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%83.3%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
PinchBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —70.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —33.2%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —37.4%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —27.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1164Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —870Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —28.9%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —3.3%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 UltraResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%71.9%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
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
Terminal-Bench HardSource 48.5%36.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%39.9%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierCodeSource 26.9%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —67.7%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source —89.0%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —44.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —56.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —49.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 UltraResult
AA-LCRSource 58.3%67.0%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
CritPtSource 2.8%3.1%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
LongBench v2Source —61.9%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 UltraResult
GPQASource 91.3%87%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%87.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%86.8%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%26.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 40%26.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
HealthBench HardSource 14.8%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 52.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%37.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%86.7%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%26.6%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%-0.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%21.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%28.5%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
AA Openness IndexSource —83.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 UltraResult
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 UltraResult
MMLU-ProXSource —83%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 UltraResult
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1606—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13301132Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 UltraResult
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%81.4%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
IFBenchSource —81.7%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 84 to 60. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 83.7% and 44.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.2 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.1 versus 58.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 51.3. Inside this category, BrowseComp is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 16, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.