Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B vs Qwen3.5 397B

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.

Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 64 to 56. 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 instruction following, where it averages 92.6 against 74.2. 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.