Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
56
o1
58
Pick o1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 256K context window.
Knowledge
+0.2 difference
Inst. Following
+18.0 difference
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
o1
$0 / $0
$15 / $60
N/A
98 t/s
N/A
32.29s
256K
200K
Pick o1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 256K context window.
o1 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 58 versus 56. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
o1's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 92.2 against 74.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 72.2% to 75.7%.
o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for o1.
o1 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 58 to 56. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 72.2% and 75.7%.
o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 75.5. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
o1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.2 versus 74.2. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.