Agentic
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 69.4
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 29.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads
Model comparison
Inkling 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.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
NVIDIA
26.9/100
Estimated · Public rank #204
90% interval 17.1–36.8
Inkling has the higher public score, 67 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
8 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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Inkling
Inkling leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
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.
7 Inkling only
8 Shared
5 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- Shared results
- 8
- Inkling only
- 7
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
2 categories use 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.
Instruction following
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 79.8
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 72.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads
Coding
Directional only- Inkling
- 68.6
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 42.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Inkling
- 51.6
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 80.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Inkling
- 97.1
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Inkling
- 76.5
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 69.4 | 29.1 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling leads |
| Instruction following | 79.8 | 72.9 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Inkling leads |
| Coding | 68.6 | 42.1 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 51.6 | 80.5 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 97.1 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 76.5 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | 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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Inkling: 63.8%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 23.5%Normalized gap 40.3Inkling source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceBrowseComp
Agentic
Inkling: 77.1%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 36.8%Normalized gap 40.3Inkling source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Inkling: 77.6%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 52.8%Normalized gap 24.8Inkling source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceGPQA
Knowledge
Inkling: 87.9%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 75.6%Normalized gap 12.3Inkling source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceIFBench
Instruction following
Inkling: 79.8%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 72.9%Normalized gap 6.9Inkling source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 source
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
- Inkling
- $0.00421
- 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
- Inkling
- $0.10754
- 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
- Inkling
- $0.159
- 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.
SpecificationInklingNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling
1M
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
API model ID
Inkling
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.
Inkling
$0.374 per 1M cached input tokens
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
No comparable hosted API rate
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning model cardDocumented inputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling
Hybrid
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling
Open Weight
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
License
Inkling
Open Weight
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling
2026-07-15
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
- Inkling has the higher public score, 67 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 evidence20 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceInkling leads this result
BrowseComp
Inkling77.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%SourceInkling leads this result
MCP Atlas
Inkling74.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
PinchBench
Inkling—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Inkling—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling77.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%SourceInkling leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling54.3%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceInkling leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Inkling—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Inkling—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Inkling87.9%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceInkling leads this result
GPQA-D
Inkling87.9%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceInkling leads this result
HLE
Inkling46%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Inkling30%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%SourceInkling leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Inkling—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Inkling97.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Inkling has the higher public score, 67 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, Inkling or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
The current coding 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 is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Inkling leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which costs less, Inkling 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, Inkling or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 11, 2026
Watch Inkling 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 issueJoin 2,000+ readers.