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

Model comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash 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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

64.3/100

Estimated · Public rank #38

90% interval 53.6–75.1

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

NVIDIA

26.9/100

Estimated · Public rank #204

90% interval 17.1–36.8

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score, 64.35 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

3 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

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    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
3
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
19
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
10
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses 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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
77.2
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
29.1
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
55.1
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
42.1
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
74.7
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
40.2
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
80.5
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
32.9
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not measured
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
83.8
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
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

Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.006
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

Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.102
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

Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15
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.

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Reasoning

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.5 Flash

2026-05-19

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
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score, 64.35 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 evidence32 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • PinchBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Gemini 3.5 Flash
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Gemini 3.5 Flash
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Gemini 3.5 Flash
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Gemini 3.5 Flash
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Gemini 3.5 Flash
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash77.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR 1M

    Gemini 3.5 Flash26.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash72.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • HLE

    Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Gemini 3.5 Flash
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Gemini 3.5 Flash
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP472.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score, 64.35 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Last updated August 11, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash 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.