Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Updated October 15, 2026. Rank says Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 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

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has the higher public point estimate, 53.85 versus 49.51. 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
NVIDIA logo

NVIDIA

49.51/100

Estimated · Public rank #97

Conditional range 35.2–63.9

Model B
Prism ML logo

Prism ML

53.85/100

Estimated · Public rank #75

Conditional range 39.5–68.2

Shared results
5
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B only
14
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B only
16
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8
Estimated: Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B. 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

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B 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 Super VL 120B A12B and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 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.

—Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

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.

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.

Instruction following

Like-for-like
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
66.6
#72/146
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
74.0
#67/146
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B leads

Agentic

Not comparable
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
44.2
Estimated · #61/127
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
Not ranked
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
73.0
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
78.8
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
62.0
Unranked · 5 rankable rows
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
51.8
Estimated · #73/184
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
Not ranked
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
Not ranked
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
86.2
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 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.

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

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B has no comparable published API token rate. Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B has no comparable published API token rate. Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B has no comparable published API token rate. Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 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

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B

Not sourced

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

prism-ml/Ternary-Bonsai-2-27B-gguf

PrismML Bonsai 2 collection

Documented inputs

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B

text, image, video

NVIDIA BF16 model card

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B

Open Weights · Hugging Face, self-hosted inference

NVIDIA BF16 model card

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B

Reasoning

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Reasoning

Weight access

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B

Open Weight

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Open Weight

License

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B

Open Weight

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Open Weight

Release date

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B

2026-10-15

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

2026-09-17

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
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has the higher public point estimate, 53.85 versus 49.51. 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
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has the higher public point estimate, 53.85 versus 49.51. 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, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

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 Super VL 120B A12B or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence35 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B66.7%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B52.8%
    Source

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B leads this result

  • τ²-bench Airline

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B76.5%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B18.9%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B78%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B80.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BFCL v3

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B74.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B88.2%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B90.1%
    Source

    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B leads this result

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B71.1%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B60.8%
    Source

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B67.7%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B51.8%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • BigCodeBench

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B58.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B52.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • CritPt

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B10.9%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • BabyVision

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B29.6%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLongBench-Doc

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B62.8%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B85.6%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B78.2%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B80.8%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv (overall)

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B80.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • A-OKVQA

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B86.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.6

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B89.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B80.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OCRBench V2

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B56.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B89.5%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B85.8%
    Source

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B31.8%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B29.2%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B89.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B85.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B70.9%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B74%
    Source

    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B leads this result

  • IFEval

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B91.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • Apex Shortlist

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B88.4%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • GSM8K

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B96.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MATH-500

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B98.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME 2025

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B95%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B—
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B95.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

35 public results · 5 shared

Watch Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12B vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 15, 2026