Model comparison
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B vs o3-mini
Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B #159 (Estimated); o3-mini #141 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B and o3-mini share 6 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B; 4 to o3-mini.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 6
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 23
- o3-mini only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick o3-mini 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.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 3 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
o3-mini is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 46.55 to 43.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o3-mini's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 93.9 against 74.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 72.2% to 77.2%.
o3-mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.10 input / $4.40 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 o3-mini.
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 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Δ | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inst. Following | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 | Margin→ 19.7 | o3-mini93.9 |
| Coding | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 | Margin→ 17.3 | o3-mini49.3 |
| Knowledge | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 | Margin→ 0.9 | o3-mini77.2 |
| Multimodal | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 | MarginNo overlap | o3-miniNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 72.2%B 77.2%Winner: o3-miniΔ 5GPQA: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 72.2%; o3-mini scored 77.2%. o3-mini wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | o3-mini | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 output | o3-mini$1.1 input / $4.4 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | o3-mini160 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | o3-mini7.12 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | o3-mini200K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Codingo3-mini wins4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledgeo3-mini wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 72.2% | 77.2% | o3-mini leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 72.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.9% | 19.0% | o3-mini leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 46.9% | 74.8% | o3-mini leads |
| AA-HLESource | 5.3% | 8.7% | o3-mini leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -56.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 83.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLUSource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | 70.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLongBench-DocSource | 57.5% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 76.3% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 57.8% | — | 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 |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 53.2% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or o3-mini?
o3-mini is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 46.55 to 43.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 72.2% and 77.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or o3-mini?
o3-mini has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 76.3. Inside this category, AA-GPQA Diamond is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or o3-mini?
o3-mini has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 49.3 versus 32. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or o3-mini?
o3-mini has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 93.9 versus 74.2. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.