Skip to main content
BenchLM

Laguna M.1 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Updated September 24, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Poolside logo

Poolside

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Model B
NVIDIA logo

NVIDIA

19.1/100

Estimated · Public rank #186

90% interval 9.2–29.0

Shared results
2
Laguna M.1 only
8
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
11
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4How the comparison works

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 is 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

    Laguna M.1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • 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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

28.5Laguna M.111.4Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7

Laguna M.1 scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 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.

Coding

Directional only
Laguna M.1
28.5
Supported · #89/135
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
11.4
Estimated · #135/135
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Laguna M.1
Not ranked
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
7.3
Estimated · #104/105
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Laguna M.1
Not ranked
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
55.9
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Laguna M.1
Not ranked
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Laguna M.1
Not ranked
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
20.7
Estimated · #154/158
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Laguna M.1
Not ranked
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Laguna M.1
Not ranked
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
68.5
#67/124
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Laguna M.1
Not ranked
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 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 v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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

Laguna M.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Laguna M.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Laguna M.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Laguna M.1 has no comparable published API token rate. 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

Laguna M.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Laguna M.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

API model ID

Laguna M.1

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.

Laguna M.1

No comparable hosted API rate

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

No comparable hosted API rate

NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning model card

Documented inputs

Laguna M.1

Not sourced

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Laguna M.1

Not sourced

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Not sourced

Provider availability

Laguna M.1

Not sourced

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Laguna M.1

Reasoning

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Reasoning

Weight access

Laguna M.1

Proprietary

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Open Weight

License

Laguna M.1

Proprietary

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4

Open Weight

Release date

Laguna M.1

2026-04-28

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Laguna M.1 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Laguna M.1 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

Laguna M.1 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 28.5 to 11.4. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 is 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, Laguna M.1 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

Laguna M.1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Laguna M.1 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, Laguna M.1 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence21 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Laguna M.145.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Laguna M.134.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PinchBench

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Laguna M.174.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%
    Source

    Laguna M.1 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Laguna M.163.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%
    Source

    Laguna M.1 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Laguna M.149.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Laguna M.145.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Laguna M.168.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Laguna M.157.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Laguna M.127.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Laguna M.168.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Laguna M.1—
    Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP472.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

21 public results · 2 shared

Watch Laguna M.1 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 issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 24, 2026