Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 75.1
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 29.1
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Updated August 11, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
NVIDIA
26.9/100
Estimated · Public rank #204
90% interval 17.1–36.8
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 71.78 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
7 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
14 Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
7 Shared
6 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- Shared results
- 7
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 14
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
3 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 78.6
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 42.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 60.0
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 80.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 75.8
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 65.1
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 72.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 75.1 | 29.1 | Directional only3 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 78.6 | 42.1 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 60.0 | 80.5 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 75.8 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 65.1 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 72.9 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 69.4%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 23.5%Normalized gap 45.9Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceBrowseComp
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 79.3%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 36.8%Normalized gap 42.5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 87.6%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 52.8%Normalized gap 34.8Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceGPQA
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 94.2%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 75.6%Normalized gap 18.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
1M
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not published
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
No comparable hosted API rate
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning model cardDocumented inputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Reasoning
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
License
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
2026-04-16
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
2026-08-11
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 71.78 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence27 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
PinchBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCR v2 128K-256K
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)59.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)0.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
HLE
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath (legacy)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)91%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)82.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP472.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 71.78 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 11, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.