Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Updated October 10, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the higher public point estimate, 64.23 versus 32.15. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
NVIDIA logo
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

NVIDIA

32.15/100

Estimated · Public rank #164

Conditional range 17.8–46.5

Model B
Alibaba logo
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Alibaba

64.23/100

Estimated · Public rank #37

Conditional range 49.9–78.6

Shared results
4
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
12
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next only
20
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8
Estimated: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

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

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

16.1Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B52.4Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

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

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Multimodal

Like-for-like
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
43.8
#50/54
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
87.7
#8/54
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
32.6
Supported · #135/177
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
59.4
Supported · #47/177
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads

Instruction following

Like-for-like
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
75.4
#62/127
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
91.2
#22/127
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads

Coding

Directional only
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
16.1
Estimated · #130/146
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
52.4
Supported · #37/146
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
59.5
Estimated · #24/123
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
53.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
80.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not ranked
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
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. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

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

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

262K

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next model card

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

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

No comparable hosted API rate

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next model card

Documented inputs

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Not sourced

Provider availability

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Reasoning

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Reasoning

Weight access

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Open Weight

License

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Open Weight

Release date

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

2026-04-28

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

2026-08-26

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
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the higher public point estimate, 64.23 versus 32.15. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the higher public point estimate, 64.23 versus 32.15. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores higher for coding on the public lane, 52.4 to 16.1. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

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 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 256K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence36 rows

Agentic

  • OSWorld

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B47.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B45.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • CoWorkBench

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next73.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next55.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next51.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next73.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next84.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next19.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench v5

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B63.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next62.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next81%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next48.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next58.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B70.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLongBench-Doc

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next90.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B88.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B90.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vision2Web

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next64.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next72.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next76.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next88.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next90.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next95.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next84.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B77.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.7%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.7%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • HLE

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next35.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next35.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next81.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

Math

  • AIME 2025

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B82.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

36 public results · 4 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

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

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 10, 2026