Skip to main content

Model comparison

Nemotron 3 Ultra vs Qwen3.5 397B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 26 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

60/100
Margin
3.3pts
← winning
56.73/100
0 category wins6 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Nemotron 3 Ultra #24; Qwen3.5 397B #20

BenchAlign evidence: Nemotron 3 Ultra not scored; Qwen3.5 397B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Nemotron 3 Ultra and Qwen3.5 397B share 26 comparable benchmark results. 6 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Nemotron 3 Ultra; 30 to Qwen3.5 397B.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
26
Nemotron 3 Ultra only
13
Qwen3.5 397B only
30
Comparable categories
6 / 8

Pick Nemotron 3 Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 26 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 6 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Nemotron 3 Ultra finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 60 to 59. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.

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 Ultra. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Nemotron 3 Ultra 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 Ultra gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 scores and score margins for Nemotron 3 Ultra and Qwen3.5 397B
CategoryNemotron 3 UltraΔQwen3.5 397B
Inst. FollowingNemotron 3 Ultra81.7Margin 10.9Qwen3.5 397B92.6
CodingNemotron 3 Ultra58.3Margin 8.2Qwen3.5 397B66.5
AgenticNemotron 3 Ultra51.3Margin 5.2Qwen3.5 397B56.5
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Ultra54.2Margin 2.7Qwen3.5 397B56.9
MultilingualNemotron 3 Ultra83.0Margin 1.7Qwen3.5 397B84.7
ReasoningNemotron 3 Ultra61.9Margin 1.3Qwen3.5 397B63.2
MathNemotron 3 UltraNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B90.6
MultimodalNemotron 3 UltraNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B79.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Nemotron 3 UltraB · Qwen3.5 397B
  1. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 44.4%B 62%
    Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 17.6
    BrowseComp: Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 44.4%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 62%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.
  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 71.9%B 76.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 4.3
    SWE-bench Verified: Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 71.9%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 76.2%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.
  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 56.4%B 52.5%
    Winner: Nemotron 3 UltraΔ 3.9
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 56.4%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 52.5%. Nemotron 3 Ultra wins this benchmark.
  4. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 26.7%B 28.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 2
    HLE: Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 26.7%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 28.7%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.
  5. MMLU-ProX

    Multilingual
    Source ↗
    A 83%B 84.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 1.7
    MMLU-ProX: Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 83%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 84.7%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricNemotron 3 UltraQwen3.5 397BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensNemotron 3 Ultra$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 outputNemotron 3 Ultra has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondNemotron 3 UltraNot availableQwen3.5 397B96 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenNemotron 3 UltraNot availableQwen3.5 397B2.44 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensNemotron 3 Ultra1MQwen3.5 397B128KNemotron 3 Ultra lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkNemotron 3 UltraQwen3.5 397BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.4%52.5%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
PinchBenchSource 90.0%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 44.4%62%Qwen3.5 397B leads
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.9%68.4%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
GDPval-AASource 33.2%23.1%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
HLE w/ toolsSource 37.4%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 27.4%19.9%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 83.3%95.6%Qwen3.5 397B leads
GDPval-AASource 1164962Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
AA BriefcaseSource 870Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 28.9%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 3.3%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 56.8%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 51.8%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
APEX-Agents-AASource 15.3%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkNemotron 3 UltraQwen3.5 397BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 71.9%76.2%Qwen3.5 397B leads
SWE MultilingualSource 67.7%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 89.0%83.6%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
SciCodeSource 44.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 49.3%48.2%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 36.4%40.9%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-SciCodeSource 39.9%42.0%Qwen3.5 397B leads
SWE-bench ProSource 50.9%Not comparable
ReasoningQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkNemotron 3 UltraQwen3.5 397BResult
AA-LCRSource 67.0%65.7%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
CritPtSource 3.1%1.7%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
LongBench v2Source 61.9%63.2%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AI-NeedleSource 68.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkNemotron 3 UltraQwen3.5 397BResult
GPQASource 87%88.4%Qwen3.5 397B leads
GPQA-DSource 87.0%Not comparable
HLESource 26.7%28.7%Qwen3.5 397B leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 26.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 86.8%87.8%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 21.6%31.4%Qwen3.5 397B leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%33.7%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.7%89.3%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-HLESource 26.6%27.3%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -0.8%-29.8%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 28.5%89.1%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
AA Openness IndexSource 83.3%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 94.9%Not comparable
C-EvalSource 93%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkNemotron 3 UltraQwen3.5 397BResult
AIME26Source 93.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 94.8%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 92.7%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 87.9%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 80.9%Not comparable
MultilingualQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkNemotron 3 UltraQwen3.5 397BResult
MMLU-ProXSource 83%84.7%Qwen3.5 397B leads
NOVA-63Source 59.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkNemotron 3 UltraQwen3.5 397BResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1132Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 88.6%Not comparable
CharXivSource 80.8%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.7%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 65.6%Not comparable
V*Source 95.8%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 77.3%Not comparable
Inst. FollowingQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkNemotron 3 UltraQwen3.5 397BResult
IFBenchSource 81.7%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 81.4%78.8%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
IFEvalSource 92.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (7)

Which is better, Nemotron 3 Ultra or Qwen3.5 397B?

Nemotron 3 Ultra is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 60 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 44.4% and 62%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Nemotron 3 Ultra or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.9 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Nemotron 3 Ultra or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.5 versus 58.3. Inside this category, LiveCodeBench v6 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Nemotron 3 Ultra or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 63.2 versus 61.9. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Nemotron 3 Ultra or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.5 versus 51.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, Nemotron 3 Ultra or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.6 versus 81.7. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multilingual tasks, Nemotron 3 Ultra or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 83. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 16, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.