Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 53.0
- Supported · #71/181
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 39.8
- Supported · #142/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads · intervals overlap
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
NVIDIA
43.97/100
Estimated · Public rank #172
90% interval 32.5–55.5
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.
Share or export
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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B are 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.
10 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
16 Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- Shared results
- 0
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 10
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 16
- 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.4
- Estimated · #104/151
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 47.0
- Estimated · #83/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.6
- Supported · #121/183
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 42.6
- Estimated · #129/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 76.1
- #16/48
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 39.1
- #42/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 60.8
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 50.3
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
- 75.9
- #57/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 53.0Supported · #71/181 | 39.8Supported · #142/181 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 3 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 43.4Estimated · #104/151 | 47.0Estimated · #83/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 43.6Supported · #121/183 | 42.6Estimated · #129/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 76.1#16/48 | 39.1#42/48 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 60.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 50.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 75.9#57/120 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | 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
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.00155
- 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.0225
- 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.037
- 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.
SpecificationGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
256K
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Reasoning
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
2026-07-21
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
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 evidence26 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite50.2%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B47.4%SourceNot directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B45.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite79.0%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite75.0%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v5
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B63.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite83.8%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite85.8%SourceNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B77.3%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME 2025
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B82.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B70.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLongBench-Doc
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%SourceNot directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B88.5%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B90.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher for coding on the public lane, 43.6 to 42.6. 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 3.5 Flash-Lite or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 47 to 43.4. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B are 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 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 issueJoin 2,000+ readers.