Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Command A+
32
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
48
Pick Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Multimodal
+16.5 difference
Command A+
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
$2.5 / $10
$0 / $0
272 t/s
N/A
0.25s
N/A
128K
256K
Pick Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 48 to 32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 76.3 against 59.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 52.7% to 76.3%.
Command A+ is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $10.00 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 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Command A+.
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 48 to 32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 52.7% and 76.3%.
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 59.8. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.