Model comparison
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B #159 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 397B #78 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B and Qwen3.5 397B share 19 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B; 36 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 10
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 56.19 to 43.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 66.5 against 32. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 72.2% to 88.4%. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 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 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
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 | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 | Margin→ 34.5 | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Knowledge | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 | Margin← 19.7 | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Inst. Following | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 | Margin→ 18.4 | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
| Multimodal | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 | Margin→ 3.3 | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Agentic | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Reasoning | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Math | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Multilingual | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 72.2%B 88.4%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 16.2GPQA: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 72.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 88.4%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 77.3%B 87.8%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 10.5MMLU-Pro: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 77.3%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 87.8%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 76.3%B 80.8%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 4.5CharXiv: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 76.3%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 80.8%. Qwen3.5 397B 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 | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSWorldSource | 47.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 45.3% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 0.0% | 23.1% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 465 | 962 | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.5 397B wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCodeSource | 32% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 27.8% | 42.0% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 13.8% | 48.2% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 76.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 50.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 77.3% | 87.8% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GPQASource | 72.2% | 88.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 72.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.9% | 33.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 46.9% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 5.3% | 27.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -56.0% | -29.8% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 14.8% | 31.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 83.1% | 89.1% | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.5 397B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | 70.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLongBench-DocSource | 57.5% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 76.3% | 80.8% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 57.8% | 65.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| 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% | 77.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.19 to 43.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 72.2% and 88.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Qwen3.5 397B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 56.6. 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 Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.5 versus 32. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.6 versus 76.3. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.6 versus 74.2. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.