Model Comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning)
vs. Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Anthropic, NVIDIA
Recommended Pick
An Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) 16 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (Non-reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning)
64.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning)
34.1 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (Non-reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) leads Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (Non-reasoning) by 38.5 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) leads Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (Non-reasoning) by 26.5 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) wins 16 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (Non-reasoning)
NVIDIA
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) | NV Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.75/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.56/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | NVIDIA |
| Release Date | May 22, 2025 | Mar 18, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 57.8 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 10908ms | — |
| Latency | 10908ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 64.4 | 26.0 |
| Intelligence | 38.7 | 14.3 |
| Coding | 34.1 | 7.6 |
| Math | 74.3 | 7.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 77.7% | 51.7% |
| MMLU Pro | 84.2% | 69.8% |
| HLE | 9.6% | 3.5% |
| LiveCodeBench | 65.5% | 28.0% |
| MATH 500 | 99.1% | 77.5% |
| AIME 2025 | 74.3% | 7.7% |
| AIME (Original) | 77.3% | 19.3% |
| SciCode | 40.0% | 22.9% |
| LCR | 64.7% | 11.3% |
| IFBench | 54.7% | 39.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 64.6% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 31.1% | 0.0% |
Key Takeaways
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 64.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) reaches a 34.1 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
