Model comparison
Muse Spark vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Muse Spark #16 (Supported); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B #159 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Muse Spark and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 18 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to Muse Spark; 11 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Muse Spark only
- 21
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Muse Spark if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 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
Muse Spark is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.35 to 43.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Muse Spark's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 67.8 against 32. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 86.4% to 76.3%. 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.
Muse Spark gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
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 | Muse Spark | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Muse Spark67.8 | Margin← 35.8 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Knowledge | Muse Spark50.4 | Margin→ 25.9 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Multimodal | Muse Spark82.5 | Margin← 6.2 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Agentic | Muse Spark59.0 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Muse Spark42.5 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Math | Muse Spark32.9 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Muse SparkNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 86.4%B 76.3%Winner: Muse SparkΔ 10.2CharXiv: Muse Spark scored 86.4%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 76.3%. Muse Spark wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Muse Spark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Muse SparkNot available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Muse SparkNot available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Muse SparkNot available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Muse Spark262K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Muse Spark lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Muse Spark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 91.5% | 45.3% | Muse Spark leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 74.8% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 28.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.2% | 0.0% | Muse Spark leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1143 | 465 | Muse Spark leads |
| OSWorldSource | — | 47.4% | Not comparable |
CodingMuse Spark wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Muse Spark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 52.4% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 80.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 19.67% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.6% | 13.8% | Muse Spark leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 51.5% | 27.8% | Muse Spark leads |
| SciCodeSource | — | 32% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Muse Spark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 89.5% | 72.2% | Muse Spark leads |
| HLESource | 50.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 42.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 42.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 14.9% | Muse Spark leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.4% | 46.9% | Muse Spark leads |
| AA-HLESource | 39.9% | 5.3% | Muse Spark leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 4.1% | -56.0% | Muse Spark leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 44.6% | 14.8% | Muse Spark leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 73.2% | 83.1% | Muse Spark leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
MultimodalMuse Spark wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Muse Spark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivSource | 86.4% | 76.3% | Muse Spark leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 71.3% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 84.1% | 57.8% | Muse Spark leads |
| ZeroBenchSource | 33.0% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 80.5% | 53.2% | Muse Spark leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLongBench-DocSource | — | 57.5% | 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 |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Muse Spark or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Muse Spark is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.35 to 43.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 86.4% and 76.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Muse Spark 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 50.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Muse Spark or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Muse Spark has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 67.8 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, Muse Spark or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Muse Spark has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.5 versus 76.3. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.