Skip to main content
Radar

Provider changes are easy to miss. Radar watches releases, pricing, deprecations, and incidents at the source.Provider changes are easy to miss.

See Radar
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 5 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.

Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic

64.7/100

Estimated · Public rank #35

90% interval 50.1–79.2

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

NVIDIA

26.9/100

Estimated · Public rank #204

90% interval 17.1–36.8

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score, 64.67 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

6 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: 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

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
6
Claude Sonnet 5 only
9
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
7
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 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.

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Sonnet 5
81.9
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
29.1
Weighted basis
3 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Claude Sonnet 5
76.7
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
42.1
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
57.4
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
80.5
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
88.3
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
72.9
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
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.

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 Sonnet 5
$0.007
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 Sonnet 5
$0.13
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 Sonnet 5
$0.18
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

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.

Provider availability

Claude Sonnet 5

Generally Available · Claude API

Anthropic model overview

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 5

Reasoning

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Open Weight

License

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

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 Sonnet 5 has the higher public score, 64.67 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 evidence22 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Sonnet 584.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 581.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • PinchBench

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Sonnet 585.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Sonnet 563.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Sonnet 578.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Sonnet 528.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Sonnet 542.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Sonnet 561.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 543.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • GPQA

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Claude Sonnet 588.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 577%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP472.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score, 64.67 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 Sonnet 5 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 Sonnet 5 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 Sonnet 5 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 Sonnet 5 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 11, 2026

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 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 issue

Join 2,000+ readers.