Model comparison
Inkling vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B unranked
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 4 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Inkling; 24 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Inkling only
- 12
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 24
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Inkling 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 4 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 45. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 68.6 against 32. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 87.9% 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.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 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 Inkling 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. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | Inkling | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin← 36.6 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | Margin→ 24.7 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.4 |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | Margin← 5.6 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | Margin← 0.2 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87.9%B 72.2%Winner: InklingΔ 15.7GPQA: Inkling scored 87.9%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 72.2%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 82%B 76.3%Winner: InklingΔ 5.8CharXiv: Inkling scored 82%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 76.3%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFBench
Inst. FollowingA 79.8%B 74.2%Winner: InklingΔ 5.6IFBench: Inkling scored 79.8%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 74.2%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 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 | InklingNot available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic6 benchmarks
CodingInkling wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v5Source | — | 63.2% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 32% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 8.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 27.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | 72.2% | Inkling leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | 72.2% | Inkling leads |
| HLESource | 46% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | 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 |
Math2 benchmarks
MultimodalInkling wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 73.5% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 82% | 76.3% | Inkling leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 78.1% | — | 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 (5)
Which is better, Inkling or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 45. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87.9% and 72.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 51.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 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, Inkling or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Inkling has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.5 versus 76.3. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Inkling or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Inkling has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 74.2. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.