Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes
BenchLM

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Opus 5.5

Anthropic

81.03/100

Estimated · Public rank #5

90% interval 56.1–92.5

NVIDIA logo
Model B
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

NVIDIA

41.21/100

Estimated · Public rank #191

90% interval 29.7–52.7

Updated September 22, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 5.5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Opus 5.5

    Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • 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: listed-rates

  • 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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

80.1Claude Opus 5.540.9Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Directional only · BenchAlign

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
Claude Opus 5.5 only
47
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
16
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

4 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Opus 5.5
82.9
Supported · #1/157
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
45.2
Estimated · #94/157
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 11 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Claude Opus 5.5
80.1
Supported · #2/159
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
40.9
Estimated · #122/159
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Claude Opus 5.5
88.8
#3/50
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
39.3
#44/50
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Opus 5.5
81.8
Estimated · #4/189
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
39.1
Supported · #147/189
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 16 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5
78.5
#4/17
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
48.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5
Not ranked
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5
Not ranked
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
72.4
#62/124
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5
Not ranked
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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 5.5
$0.014
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 5.5
$0.26
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 5.5
$0.32
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B 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.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 5.5

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude Opus 5.5 model documentation

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Provider availability

Claude Opus 5.5

Generally Available · Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Platform on AWS

Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 model documentation

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 5.5

Reasoning

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 5.5

Proprietary

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 5.5

Proprietary

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 5.5

2026-09-22

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

2026-04-28

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger documented window (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 evidence63 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Opus 5.566.40%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1

    Claude Opus 5.558.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Opus 5.540.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Opus 5.567.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Opus 5.548.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Opus 5.58.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Opus 5.591.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Opus 5.577.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass@3

    Claude Opus 5.582.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass³

    Claude Opus 5.572.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified avg. turns

    Claude Opus 5.526.9 turns
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B47.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B45.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Opus 5.554.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench40

    Claude Opus 5.557.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 5.589.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 5.593.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Opus 5.561.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Opus 5.574.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Extended

    Claude Opus 5.563.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Claude Opus 5.562.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Opus 5.591.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v5

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B63.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Chartography (tools)

    Claude Opus 5.589.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Claude Opus 5.564.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)

    Claude Opus 5.50.730
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)

    Claude Opus 5.50.962
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Biomedical image analysis

    Claude Opus 5.571.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA

    Claude Opus 5.578.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Opus 5.567.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B70.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLongBench-Doc

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B88.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B90.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 5.564.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench (raw)

    Claude Opus 5.568.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench (length-adjusted)

    Claude Opus 5.560.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Claude Opus 5.565.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional (raw)

    Claude Opus 5.577.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)

    Claude Opus 5.589.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Claude Opus 5.550.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SpatialBench Verified

    Claude Opus 5.572.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SingleCellBench

    Claude Opus 5.561.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Morphology-to-molecule matching

    Claude Opus 5.534.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Medicinal chemistry

    Claude Opus 5.563.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protein Design

    Claude Opus 5.560.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protein Design library ranking

    Claude Opus 5.556.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • De novo protein-binder design

    Claude Opus 5.582.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (troubleshooting)

    Claude Opus 5.573.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (understanding)

    Claude Opus 5.569.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B77.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • GMMLU

    Claude Opus 5.594.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MILU

    Claude Opus 5.593.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (no tools)

    Claude Opus 5.591.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (tools)

    Claude Opus 5.596.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME 2025

    Claude Opus 5.5—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B82.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 5.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 80.1 to 40.9. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 82.9 to 45.2. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 5.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

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 5.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 22, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 5.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.