Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Moonshot AI logo
Model A
Kimi K2.5

Moonshot AI

54.01/100

Supported · Public rank #103

90% interval 46.761.3

Kimi K2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

NVIDIA logo
Model B
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

NVIDIA

40.6/100

Estimated · Public rank #183

90% interval 29.152.1

Decision reading

Kimi K2.5 has the higher public score estimate, 54.01 versus 40.6, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Kimi K2.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Kimi K2.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is 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: rate-fallback

  • 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.

Shared results
5
Kimi K2.5 only
40
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
11
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

5 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Directional only
Kimi K2.5
46.4
Estimated · #77/152
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
44.3
Estimated · #90/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 14 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Kimi K2.5
50.6
Estimated · #55/151
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
40.2
Estimated · #116/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Kimi K2.5
52.0
Estimated · #69/183
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
38.7
Supported · #143/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Kimi K2.5
65.7
#24/48
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
39.3
#42/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Kimi K2.5
85.8
#41/123
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
75.9
#59/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Kimi K2.5
54.1
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
48.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Kimi K2.5
62.4
#5/7
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 4 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Kimi K2.5
38.2
#8/12
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

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

Kimi K2.5
$0.0021
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Kimi K2.5
$0.039
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Kimi K2.5
$0.162
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Kimi K2.5

256K

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

256K

API model ID

Kimi K2.5

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Kimi K2.5

Not published

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Kimi K2.5

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Kimi K2.5

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Kimi K2.5

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Kimi K2.5

Non-Reasoning

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

Kimi K2.5

Open Weight

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

License

Kimi K2.5

Open Weight

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

Release date

Kimi K2.5

2026-02-01

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

2026-04-28

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
Kimi K2.5 has the higher public score estimate, 54.01 versus 40.6, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 256K.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Self-host vs API cost

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

Kimi K2.5
API / mo$2,700
Self-host / mo$5,221
Break-even132M/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

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence56 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Kimi K2.550.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Kimi K2.560.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Kimi K2.552.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Kimi K2.554.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Kimi K2.565.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Kimi K2.577.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Kimi K2.514.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Kimi K2.527.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Kimi K2.529.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    Kimi K2.559.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Kimi K2.572.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Kimi K2.545.88%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Kimi K2.514.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Kimi K2.58.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B47.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B45.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Kimi K2.576.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    Kimi K2.570.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Kimi K2.585.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Kimi K2.550.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Kimi K2.573%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    Kimi K2.558.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Kimi K2.577.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Kimi K2.548.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32%
    Source

    Kimi K2.5 leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench v5

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B63.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Kimi K2.561%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Kimi K2.587.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Kimi K2.5 leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Kimi K2.587.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Kimi K2.5 leads this result

  • SuperGPQA

    Kimi K2.569.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Kimi K2.587.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B77.3%
    Source

    Kimi K2.5 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    Kimi K2.587.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Kimi K2.530.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2025

    Kimi K2.596.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B82.1%
    Source

    Kimi K2.5 leads this result

  • AIME26

    Kimi K2.595.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    Kimi K2.596.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Kimi K2.595.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Kimi K2.591.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Kimi K2.587.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Kimi K2.581.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Kimi K2.527.900%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Kimi K2.54.200%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Kimi K2.582.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    Kimi K2.556.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Kimi K2.578.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME

    Kimi K2.587.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    Kimi K2.580.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Kimi K2.586.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B70.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLongBench-Doc

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B88.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B90.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Kimi K2.593.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • IFBench

    Kimi K2.5
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Kimi K2.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Kimi K2.5 has the higher public score estimate, 54.01 versus 40.6, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Kimi K2.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 50.6 to 40.2. Kimi K2.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Kimi K2.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 46.4 to 44.3. Kimi K2.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Kimi K2.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

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, Kimi K2.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Both models list the same context window, 256K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Kimi K2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.