Skip to main content
BenchLM

Gemini 3 Pro vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Updated September 24, 2026. Rank says Gemini 3 Pro is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

Model A
Google logo

Google

61.01/100

Supported · Public rank #40

90% interval 50.6–71.4

Model B
NVIDIA logo

NVIDIA

19.1/100

Estimated · Public rank #186

90% interval 9.2–29.0

Shared results
0
Gemini 3 Pro only
12
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
13
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: Gemini 3 Pro · Estimated: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4How the comparison works

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 Pro

    Gemini 3 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

    Gemini 3 Pro and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 are 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 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    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: rate-fallback
  • 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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

45.1Gemini 3 Pro11.4Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7

Gemini 3 Pro scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 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.

Coding

Directional only
Gemini 3 Pro
45.1
Estimated · #47/135
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
11.4
Estimated · #135/135
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 1 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Gemini 3 Pro
59.0
Estimated · #36/158
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
20.7
Estimated · #154/158
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Gemini 3 Pro
84.7
#39/124
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
68.5
#67/124
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
Not ranked
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
7.3
Estimated · #104/105
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
46.4
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
55.9
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
74.2
#18/50
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
Not ranked
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
55.2
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Bars run 0–100Methodology

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 Pro
$0.008
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 Pro
$0.136
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 Pro
$0.56
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

API model ID

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

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 Pro

Not published

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

No comparable hosted API rate

NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning model card

Documented inputs

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3 Pro

Non-Reasoning

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3 Pro

Proprietary

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3 Pro

Proprietary

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3 Pro

2025-11-18

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
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 Pro has the larger documented window (2M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3 Pro or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

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 Pro or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

Gemini 3 Pro scores higher for coding on the public lane, 45.1 to 11.4. Gemini 3 Pro and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 are 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 Pro or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

Gemini 3 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Gemini 3 Pro 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 Pro or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence25 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3 Pro63.23%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Gemini 3 Pro11.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PinchBench

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3 Pro14.30%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3 Pro31.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3 Pro81%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Gemini 3 Pro86.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Gemini 3 Pro87.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemini 3 Pro72.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3 Pro81.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Gemini 3 Pro88.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP472.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3 Pro37.600%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3 Pro18.750%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

25 public results · 0 shared

Watch Gemini 3 Pro 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.

Last updated September 24, 2026