Model Comparison
Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Google, NVIDIA
Recommended Pick
Go Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning) 10 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Latency, Intelligence
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
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning)
58.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning)
33.9 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 2.5x cheaper on input tokens than Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) generates about 2.1x as many tokens per second as Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) leads Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning) by 18.4 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning) leads Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) by 14.9 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning)
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 Go Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning) | NV Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.14/1M | $0.06/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.22/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.21/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | NVIDIA | |
| Release Date | Apr 2, 2026 | Dec 15, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 60.4 tok/s | 124.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | 987ms | 1330ms |
| Latency | 987ms | 17450ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 32.2 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 40.0 | 58.4 |
| Intelligence | 32.3 | 24.3 |
| Coding | 33.9 | 19.0 |
| Math | — | 91.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 76.3% | 75.7% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 79.4% |
| HLE | 11.5% | 10.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 74.1% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 91.0% |
| SciCode | 41.1% | 29.6% |
| LCR | 36.0% | 33.7% |
| IFBench | 53.5% | 71.1% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 65.5% | 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.
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 58.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 33.9 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
Gemma 4 31B (Non-reasoning)
- Code generation
- Software development
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
