Model comparison
Grok 4.20 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 #93 (Estimated); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B #159 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4.20 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to Grok 4.20; 27 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Grok 4.20 only
- 17
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 27
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Grok 4.20 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 53.88 to 43.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.20's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 67.1 against 32. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 60.9% to 76.3%. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 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. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 256K for Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
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 | Grok 4.20 | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok 4.2067.1 | Margin← 35.1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Multimodal | Grok 4.2070.1 | Margin→ 6.2 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Agentic | Grok 4.2047.1 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Grok 4.2053.3 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Grok 4.20Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Inst. Following | Grok 4.20Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 60.9%B 76.3%Winner: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BΔ 15.4CharXiv: Grok 4.20 scored 60.9%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 76.3%. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok 4.20 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4.20$2 input / $6 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 | Grok 4.20233 tok/s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 4.2010.33 s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4.202M | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Grok 4.20 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 47.1% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 62.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.36% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | — | 47.4% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 45.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 465 | Not comparable |
CodingGrok 4.20 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 74.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 76.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 51.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 4.06% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 32% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 27.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 13.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 88.5% | 72.2% | Grok 4.20 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 31.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 50.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 14.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 46.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 5.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -56.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 83.1% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
MultimodalNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 75.2% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 60.9% | 76.3% | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads |
| ERQASource | 54.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 65.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1252 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLongBench-DocSource | — | 57.5% | 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 (3)
Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.88 to 43.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 60.9% and 76.3%.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 32. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Grok 4.20 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 70.1. Inside this category, CharXiv 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.