Model comparison
GLM-5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5 #31 (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. GLM-5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to GLM-5; 15 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- GLM-5 only
- 35
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick GLM-5 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 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.24 to 43.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 66.3 against 32. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 86% to 72.2%. 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.
GLM-5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $3.20 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 GLM-5 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. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for GLM-5.
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 | GLM-5 | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GLM-566.3 | Margin← 34.3 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Inst. Following | GLM-592.6 | Margin← 18.4 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
| Knowledge | GLM-566.4 | Margin→ 9.9 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Agentic | GLM-556.2 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Reasoning | GLM-560.8 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Math | GLM-556.3 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Multilingual | GLM-583.1 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Multimodal | GLM-5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 86%B 72.2%Winner: GLM-5Δ 13.8GPQA: GLM-5 scored 86%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 72.2%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 85.7%B 77.3%Winner: GLM-5Δ 8.4MMLU-Pro: GLM-5 scored 85.7%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 77.3%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 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 | GLM-574 tok/s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-51.64 s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5200K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.7% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 54.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 65.6% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 14.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 38% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 31.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 60.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 69.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.2% | 45.3% | GLM-5 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 14.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.99% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | — | 47.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 465 | Not comparable |
CodingGLM-5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 72.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 55.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 62.8% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 74.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.2% | 27.8% | GLM-5 leads |
| SciCodeSource | — | 32% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 13.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 86% | 72.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 86.0% | 72.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 66.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.7% | 77.3% | GLM-5 leads |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 50.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 39.5% | 14.9% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.0% | 46.9% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 27.2% | 5.3% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 2.0% | -56.0% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.9% | 14.8% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 34.0% | 83.1% | GLM-5 leads |
Math9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 97.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 96.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 86.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 82.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 16.434% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.100% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME 2025Source | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1274 | — | 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 (4)
Which is better, GLM-5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
GLM-5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.24 to 43.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 86% and 72.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5 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 66.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
GLM-5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.3 versus 32. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, GLM-5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
GLM-5 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.6 versus 74.2. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.