Model Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
vs. Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Anthropic, NVIDIA
Recommended Pick
An Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) 10 metric wins Strongest on: Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding
Best Value
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
16.9 reasoning / $0.09/1M
Lowest Price
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
$0.05/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
49.7 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
47.6 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) is 125x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Speed gap
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) generates about 1.8x as many tokens per second as Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Reasoning gap
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) leads Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) by 32.8 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) leads Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) by 31.8 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
NVIDIA
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | NV Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $6.25/1M | $0.05/1M |
| Output Cost | $25.00/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $10.94/1M | $0.09/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | NVIDIA |
| Release Date | Feb 5, 2026 | Dec 15, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 45.1 tok/s | 80.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1343ms | 292ms |
| Latency | 1343ms | 292ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 2.4 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 49.7 | 16.9 |
| Intelligence | 46.5 | 13.2 |
| Coding | 47.6 | 15.8 |
| Math | — | 13.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 84.0% | 39.9% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 57.9% |
| HLE | 18.6% | 4.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 36.0% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 13.3% |
| SciCode | 45.7% | 23.0% |
| LCR | 58.3% | 6.7% |
| IFBench | 44.6% | 37.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 84.8% | 25.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 48.5% | 12.1% |
Key Takeaways
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.05/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 49.7 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) reaches a 47.6 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 Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
