Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B vs ZAYA1-8B

Updated August 5, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

NVIDIA

43.3/100

Estimated · Public rank #162

90% interval 31.8–54.8

ZAYA1-8B

Zyphra

31.6/100

Estimated · Public rank #201

90% interval 21.7–41.5

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the higher public score estimate, 43.28 versus 31.58, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

4 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

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B 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

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. ZAYA1-8B does not fit this workload in one request. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate. ZAYA1-8B has no comparable published API token rate.

    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
4
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
12
ZAYA1-8B only
7
Like-for-like categories
1 / 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

Like-for-like
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
76.3
ZAYA1-8B
73.6
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads

Instruction following

Directional only
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
74.2
ZAYA1-8B
64.1
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not measured
ZAYA1-8B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
32.0
ZAYA1-8B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not measured
ZAYA1-8B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not measured
ZAYA1-8B
80.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Not measured
ZAYA1-8B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
76.3
ZAYA1-8B
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
ZAYA1-8B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate. ZAYA1-8B 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
ZAYA1-8B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate. ZAYA1-8B 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
ZAYA1-8B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

ZAYA1-8B does not fit this workload in one request. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has no comparable published API token rate. ZAYA1-8B 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

ZAYA1-8B

131K

API model ID

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

ZAYA1-8B

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

ZAYA1-8B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

ZAYA1-8B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

ZAYA1-8B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Not sourced

ZAYA1-8B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Reasoning

ZAYA1-8B

Reasoning

Weight access

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

ZAYA1-8B

Open Weight

License

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Open Weight

ZAYA1-8B

Open Weight

Release date

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

2026-04-28

ZAYA1-8B

2026-05-05

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
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the higher public score estimate, 43.28 versus 31.58, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the larger documented window (256K).

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 evidence23 rows

Agentic

  • OSWorld

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B47.4%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B45.3%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • BFCL v4

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    ZAYA1-8B39.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench v5

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B63.2%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    ZAYA1-8B65.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B77.3%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B74.2%
    Source

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads this result

  • GPQA

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B71%
    Source

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B71.0%
    Source

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads this result

Math

  • AIME 2025

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B82.1%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    ZAYA1-8B89.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    ZAYA1-8B71.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    ZAYA1-8B59.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    ZAYA1-8B32.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B70.8%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLongBench-Doc

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.5%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B57.8%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B72.2%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B88.5%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B90.5%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2%
    Source
    ZAYA1-8B52.6%
    Source

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads this result

  • IFEval

    Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B—
    ZAYA1-8B85.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B or ZAYA1-8B?

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the higher public score estimate, 43.28 versus 31.58, 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 ZAYA1-8B?

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 ZAYA1-8B?

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 ZAYA1-8B?

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 ZAYA1-8B?

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 131K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 5, 2026

Watch Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B vs ZAYA1-8B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.