Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Updated October 20, 2026. Rank says Ling 3.0 Flash is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Ling 3.0 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 45.07 versus 32.11. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
InclusionAI logo
Ling 3.0 Flash

InclusionAI

45.07/100

Estimated · Public rank #121

Conditional range 30.7–59.4

Model B
NVIDIA logo
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

NVIDIA

32.11/100

Estimated · Public rank #172

Conditional range 17.8–46.5

Shared results
5
Ling 3.0 Flash only
19
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
12
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8
Estimated: Ling 3.0 Flash and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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

    Ling 3.0 Flash

    Ling 3.0 Flash 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 Nano Omni 30B A3B 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

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B 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.

31.6Ling 3.0 Flash15.3Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Ling 3.0 Flash has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

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

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
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 v5.8 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.

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Ling 3.0 Flash
43.5
Supported · #107/187
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
32.5
Supported · #145/187
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Ling 3.0 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Instruction following

Like-for-like
Ling 3.0 Flash
75.2
#68/149
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
75.4
#67/149
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Practical tie

Coding

Directional only
Ling 3.0 Flash
31.6
Supported · #92/152
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
15.3
Estimated · #135/152
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Ling 3.0 Flash
33.4
Supported · #87/131
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Ling 3.0 Flash
75.1
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
52.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not ranked
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
43.8
#51/55
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not ranked
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Ling 3.0 Flash
81.1
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 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 v5.8) 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

Ling 3.0 Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate. 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

Ling 3.0 Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B 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

Ling 3.0 Flash

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.

Ling 3.0 Flash

No comparable hosted API rate

InclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash model card

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Ling 3.0 Flash

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Ling 3.0 Flash

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Ling 3.0 Flash

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Ling 3.0 Flash

Reasoning

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

Ling 3.0 Flash

Open Weight

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

License

Ling 3.0 Flash

Open Weight

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

Release date

Ling 3.0 Flash

2026-07-23

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
Ling 3.0 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 45.07 versus 32.11. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Ling 3.0 Flash has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Ling 3.0 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 45.07 versus 32.11. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Ling 3.0 Flash scores higher for coding on the public lane, 31.6 to 15.3. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B 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, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Ling 3.0 Flash 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, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Ling 3.0 Flash has the larger documented context window: 262K, 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 evidence36 rows

Agentic

  • MCP Atlas

    Ling 3.0 Flash65.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    Ling 3.0 Flash44.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • BFCL v4

    Ling 3.0 Flash73.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Ling 3.0 Flash73.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Ling 3.0 Flash72.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Ling 3.0 Flash70.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Ling 3.0 Flash50.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Index

    Ling 3.0 Flash21.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Bench

    Ling 3.0 Flash53.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B47.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B45.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Ling 3.0 Flash56.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Ling 3.0 Flash72.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v5

    Ling 3.0 Flash82.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B63.2%
    Source

    Ling 3.0 Flash leads this result

  • SciCode

    Ling 3.0 Flash41.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32%
    Source

    Ling 3.0 Flash leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Ling 3.0 Flash84.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Ling 3.0 Flash65.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • ParseBench

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B48.51%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B70.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLongBench-Doc

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B88.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B90.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Ling 3.0 Flash leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source

    Ling 3.0 Flash leads this result

  • HLE

    Ling 3.0 Flash22.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Ling 3.0 Flash84.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Ling 3.0 Flash82.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B77.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Ling 3.0 Flash74.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2%
    Source

    Ling 3.0 Flash leads this result

Math

  • AIME26

    Ling 3.0 Flash93.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Ling 3.0 Flash87.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    Ling 3.0 Flash83.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME 2025

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B82.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

36 public results · 5 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Ling 3.0 Flash 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 5,600+ readers.

Last updated October 20, 2026