Model Comparison
V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning)
vs. Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · DeepSeek, NVIDIA
Recommended Pick
De V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) 12 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Latency, Reasoning
Best Value
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
58.4 reasoning / $0.10/1M
Lowest Price
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning)
$0.06/1M input price
Best Reasoning
V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning)
61.5 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning)
33.7 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 (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) is 29.7x cheaper on input tokens than V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) leads Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) by 3.1 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) leads Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) by 14.7 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) wins 12 measurable categories, including TTFT, Latency, Reasoning, Intelligence.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning)
NVIDIA
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick De V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) | NV Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $1.64/1M | $0.06/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.75/1M | $0.22/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.91/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | NVIDIA |
| Release Date | Sep 22, 2025 | Dec 15, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 124.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1193ms |
| Latency | — | 17313ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 5.3 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 61.5 | 58.4 |
| Intelligence | 33.9 | 24.3 |
| Coding | 33.7 | 19.0 |
| Math | 89.7 | 91.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 79.2% | 75.7% |
| MMLU Pro | 85.1% | 79.4% |
| HLE | 15.2% | 10.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | 79.8% | 74.1% |
| AIME 2025 | 89.7% | 91.0% |
| SciCode | 40.6% | 29.6% |
| LCR | 65.0% | 33.7% |
| IFBench | 57.0% | 71.1% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 37.1% | 40.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 30.3% | 13.6% |
Key Takeaways
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.06/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 61.5 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) reaches a 33.7 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
V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
