Agentic
Directional only- MiniMax M3
- 72.3
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 29.1
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
MiniMax M3 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Updated August 11, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
NVIDIA
26.9/100
Estimated · Public rank #204
90% interval 17.1–36.8
MiniMax M3 has the higher public score, 68.6 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
4 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are 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: 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
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
17 MiniMax M3 only
4 Shared
9 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- Shared results
- 4
- MiniMax M3 only
- 17
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- 9
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Directional only- MiniMax M3
- 72.2
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 42.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 80.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- 85.7
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- 64.9
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 72.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiniMax M3 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 72.3 | 29.1 | Directional only3 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 72.2 | 42.1 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 80.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 85.7 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 64.9 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 72.9 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
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.
BrowseComp
Agentic
MiniMax M3: 83.5%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 36.8%Normalized gap 46.7MiniMax M3 source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
MiniMax M3: 66%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 23.5%Normalized gap 42.5MiniMax M3 source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
MiniMax M3: 80.5%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 52.8%Normalized gap 27.7MiniMax M3 source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 source
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
- MiniMax M3
- $0.0009
- Fits in one request
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- MiniMax M3
- $0.0186
- Fits in one request
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
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
- MiniMax M3
- $0.03
- Fits in one request
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 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.
SpecificationMiniMax M3Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiniMax M3
1M
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
API model ID
MiniMax M3
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.
MiniMax M3
$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
No comparable hosted API rate
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning model cardDocumented inputs
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiniMax M3
Non-Reasoning
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Reasoning
Weight access
MiniMax M3
Open Weight
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
License
MiniMax M3
Open Weight
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
Release date
MiniMax M3
2026-06-01
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
- MiniMax M3 has the higher public score, 68.6 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence30 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiniMax M366%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceMiniMax M3 leads this result
BrowseComp
MiniMax M383.5%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%SourceMiniMax M3 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
MiniMax M370.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
MiniMax M374.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
MiniMax M374.5%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
BankerToolBench
MiniMax M376.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
MiniMax M319.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
MiniMax M34.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
PinchBench
MiniMax M3—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
MiniMax M3—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
MiniMax M380.5%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%SourceMiniMax M3 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
MiniMax M359%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiniMax M366.0%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceMiniMax M3 leads this result
NL2Repo
MiniMax M342.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
VIBE V2
MiniMax M350.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
SVG-Bench
MiniMax M363.7%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
KernelBench Hard
MiniMax M328.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
MiniMax M3—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
MiniMax M3—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
MiniMax M3—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
MiniMax M3—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
MiniMax M3—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
MiniMax M3—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
USAMO 2026
MiniMax M385.7%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
MiniMax M345.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
MiniMax M391.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
MiniMax M378.1%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
MiniMax M384.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
MiniMax M385.4%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
MiniMax M3—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP472.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, MiniMax M3 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
MiniMax M3 has the higher public score, 68.6 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M3 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M3 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, MiniMax M3 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, MiniMax M3 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 11, 2026
Watch MiniMax M3 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 issueJoin 2,000+ readers.