Skip to main content

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Moonshot AI
58.73/100
Margin
15.4pts
← winning
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #61 (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. Kimi K2.6 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 19 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 31 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 10 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.

Updated July 27, 2026
Shared results
19
Kimi K2.6 only
31
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
10
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Kimi K2.6 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 19 shared benchmark results across 6 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

Kimi K2.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.73 to 43.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Kimi K2.6's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 64.4 against 32. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SciCode, 52.2% to 32%. 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.

Kimi K2.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.95 input / $4.00 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.

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 scores and score margins for Kimi K2.6 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
CategoryKimi K2.6ΔNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
KnowledgeKimi K2.642.2Margin 34.1Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3
CodingKimi K2.664.4Margin 32.4Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0
MultimodalKimi K2.679.8Margin 3.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3
AgenticKimi K2.673.5MarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured
MathKimi K2.667.1MarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured
Inst. FollowingKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Kimi K2.6B · Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
  1. SciCode

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 52.2%B 32%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 20.2
    SciCode: Kimi K2.6 scored 52.2%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 32%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.
  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 90.5%B 72.2%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 18.3
    GPQA: Kimi K2.6 scored 90.5%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 72.2%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.
  3. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 80.4%B 76.3%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 4.2
    CharXiv: Kimi K2.6 scored 80.4%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 76.3%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricKimi K2.6Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 outputNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondKimi K2.6Not availableNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenKimi K2.6Not availableNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensKimi K2.6256KNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 66.7%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 83.2%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 73.1%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 50%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 55.9%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 62.3%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 92.5%Not comparable
WideResearchSource 80.8%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 30.3%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.9%45.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 34.4%0.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 1188465Kimi K2.6 leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 28.5%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 56.82%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 4.6%Not comparable
OSWorldSource 47.4%Not comparable
CodingKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.2%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 89.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 58.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 76.7%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 52.2%32%Kimi K2.6 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 66.7%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 37.89%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 47.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 61.8%13.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%27.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
AA-LCRSource 69.7%35.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
CritPtSource 8.0%0.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
GPQASource 90.5%72.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 90.5%72.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
HLESource 34.7%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 44.2%14.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%46.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-HLESource 35.9%5.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 6.4%-56.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 32.8%14.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 39.3%83.1%Kimi K2.6 leads
MMLU-ProSource 77.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
AIME26Source 96.4%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 92.7%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 86.0%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 38.966%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.580%Not comparable
AIME 2025Source 82.1%Not comparable
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
MMMU-ProSource 79.4%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 80.1%Not comparable
CharXivSource 80.4%76.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
MathVisionSource 87.4%Not comparable
V*Source 96.9%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 79.4%53.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1302Not 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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 76.0%63.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
IFBenchSource 74.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.73 to 43.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SciCode, where the scores are 52.2% and 32%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.6 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 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.6 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.4 versus 32. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 76.3. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Kimi K2.6
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 27, 2026

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.