Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

NVIDIA

44.4/100

Estimated · Public rank #169

90% interval 32.9–55.9

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Updated August 19, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Ornith AI

49.3/100

Estimated · Public rank #136

90% interval 39.4–59.1

Decision reading

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has the higher public score estimate, 49.27 versus 44.38, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

2 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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B 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

  • Agentic work

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

    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: 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

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
2
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
14
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B only
16
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Knowledge

Directional only
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
76.3
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
34.2
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
67.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
32.0
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
71.5
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
76.3
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
74.2
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
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.

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 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

256K

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

262K

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B model card

API model ID

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

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 Nano Omni 30B A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B model card

Documented inputs

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Reasoning

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Open Weight

License

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Open Weight

Release date

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

2026-04-28

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

2026-08-18

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
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has the higher public score estimate, 49.27 versus 44.38, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has the larger documented window (262K).

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 evidence32 rows

Agentic

  • OSWorld

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B47.4%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B45.3%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B33.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B70.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B48.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B72.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench v5

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B63.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B79%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B59.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B71.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B22%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • frontierBench

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B5.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B46.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B77.3%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B89.2%
    Source

    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B89.2%
    Source

    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B leads this result

  • HLE

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B25.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B25.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2025

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B82.1%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B70.8%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLongBench-Doc

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.5%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.8%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B88.5%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B90.5%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has the higher public score estimate, 49.27 versus 44.38, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

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 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

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 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 19, 2026

Watch Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.