Model comparison
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok Code Fast 1 #189 (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. Grok Code Fast 1 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 11 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Grok Code Fast 1; 18 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 1
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 43.32 to 37.75. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok Code Fast 1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.50 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 Grok Code Fast 1 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.
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 Code Fast 1 | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok Code Fast 170.8 | Margin← 38.8 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Knowledge | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Multimodal | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Inst. Following | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok Code Fast 1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 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 Code Fast 1172 tok/s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok Code Fast 1256K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
CodingGrok Code Fast 1 wins4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 21.6% | 14.9% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 72.7% | 46.9% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.5% | 5.3% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.0% | -56.0% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 23.8% | 14.8% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 78.5% | 83.1% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 (2)
Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 43.32 to 37.75.
Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 32. Inside this category, AA-SciCode 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.