Agentic
Like-for-like- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 29.1
- Step 3.7 Flash
- 66.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Step 3.7 Flash leads
Model comparison
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 vs Step 3.7 Flash
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
Step 3.7 Flash has the higher public score, 50.19 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
3 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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
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
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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: 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.
10 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
3 Shared
8 Step 3.7 Flash only
- Shared results
- 3
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- 10
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
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
Not comparable- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 42.1
- Step 3.7 Flash
- 56.3
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 80.5
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 72.9
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 | Step 3.7 Flash | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 29.1 | 66.4 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Coding | 42.1 | 56.3 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 80.5 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 72.9 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 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
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 36.8%Step 3.7 Flash: 75.8%Normalized gap 39.0Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 source Step 3.7 Flash sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 23.5%Step 3.7 Flash: 59.5%Normalized gap 36.0Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 source Step 3.7 Flash 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
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Step 3.7 Flash
- $0.00077
- 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
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Step 3.7 Flash
- $0.01345
- 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
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Step 3.7 Flash
- $0.0555
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Step 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. 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.
SpecificationNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4Step 3.7 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Step 3.7 Flash
256K
API model ID
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
No comparable hosted API rate
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning model cardStep 3.7 Flash
Not published
Documented inputs
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Reasoning
Step 3.7 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
Step 3.7 Flash
Open Weight
License
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
Step 3.7 Flash
Open Weight
Release date
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
2026-08-11
Step 3.7 Flash
2026-05-29
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
- Step 3.7 Flash has the higher public score, 50.19 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
- 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.
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
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceStep 3.7 Flash59.5%SourceStep 3.7 Flash leads this result
PinchBench
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%SourceStep 3.7 Flash75.8%SourceStep 3.7 Flash leads this result
τ³-bench results
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Step 3.7 Flash92.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Step 3.7 Flash49.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Step 3.7 Flash67.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Step 3.7 Flash47.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Step 3.7 Flash51.57%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceStep 3.7 Flash59.5%SourceStep 3.7 Flash leads this result
SciCode
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Step 3.7 Flash56.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP472.9%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash has the higher public score, 50.19 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, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 or Step 3.7 Flash?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which costs less, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 or Step 3.7 Flash?
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, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 11, 2026
Watch Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 vs Step 3.7 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.