Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Google logo
Model A
Gemini 3.1 Pro

Google

69.95/100

Supported · Public rank #19

90% interval 63.076.9

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

NVIDIA logo
Model B
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

NVIDIA

40.6/100

Estimated · Public rank #183

90% interval 29.152.1

Decision reading

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher public score, 69.95 versus 40.6, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

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

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

    Gemini 3.1 Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Pro 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

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
4
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
24
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
12
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

3 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.

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Gemini 3.1 Pro
66.1
Supported · #21/183
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
38.7
Supported · #143/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads

Agentic

Directional only
Gemini 3.1 Pro
38.9
Supported · #121/152
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
44.3
Estimated · #90/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Gemini 3.1 Pro
46.3
Supported · #82/151
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
40.2
Estimated · #116/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Gemini 3.1 Pro
79.2
#12/48
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
39.3
#42/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
50.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
48.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
54.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
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
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Not ranked
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
75.9
#59/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 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.

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

Gemini 3.1 Pro
$0.008
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

Gemini 3.1 Pro
$0.136
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

Gemini 3.1 Pro
$0.2
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.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Provider availability

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Preview · Gemini API, Google AI Studio

Google Gemini model catalog

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Reasoning

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Proprietary

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Proprietary

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.1 Pro

2026-02-19

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
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher public score, 69.95 versus 40.6, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 evidence40 rows

Agentic

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemini 3.1 Pro57.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B45.3%
    Source

    Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3.1 Pro56.87%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Gemini 3.1 Pro13.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro70.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B47.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Pro82.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Gemini 3.1 Pro78.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3.1 Pro32.03%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro88.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro78.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v5

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B63.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Gemini 3.1 Pro0.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3.1 Pro94.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Gemini 3.1 Pro45.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    Gemini 3.1 Pro20.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro71.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro95.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro91.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B77.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro36.900%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro16.700%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME 2025

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B82.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Pro83.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.1 Pro80.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3%
    Source

    Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result

  • ERQA

    Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.8%
    Source

    Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result

  • ZeroBench

    Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B70.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLongBench-Doc

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B88.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B90.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Gemini 3.1 Pro
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher public score, 69.95 versus 40.6, 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, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Gemini 3.1 Pro scores higher for coding on the public lane, 46.3 to 40.2. 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, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 44.3 to 38.9. 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, Gemini 3.1 Pro 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, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.1 Pro 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.