Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro #49 (Supported); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B #159 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro; 26 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- DeepSeek V4 Pro only
- 20
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 26
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V4 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 59.98 to 43.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
DeepSeek V4 Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 65.3 against 32. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMLU-Pro, 82.9% to 77.3%. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
DeepSeek V4 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.43 input / $0.87 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 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro 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. DeepSeek V4 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
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 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro41.3 | Margin→ 35.0 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro65.3 | Margin← 33.3 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro59.1 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro31.7 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Inst. Following | DeepSeek V4 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 82.9%B 77.3%Winner: DeepSeek V4 ProΔ 5.6MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 82.9%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 77.3%. DeepSeek V4 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 72.9%B 72.2%Winner: DeepSeek V4 ProΔ 0.7GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 72.9%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 72.2%. DeepSeek V4 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro1M | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | DeepSeek V4 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 46.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.28% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 17.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | — | 47.4% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 45.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 465 | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 69.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 32% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 27.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 13.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.9% | 77.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro leads |
| SimpleQASource | 45% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 75.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 72.9% | 72.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 72.9% | 72.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro leads |
| HLESource | 7.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 14.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 46.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 5.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -56.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 83.1% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1260 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLongBench-DocSource | — | 57.5% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 53.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.98 to 43.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 82.9% and 77.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 41.3. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.3 versus 32. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.