Model Comparison
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · NVIDIA, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
NV Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning) 12 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Reasoning, Math
Best Value
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
100.0 value score
36.1 reasoning / $0.35/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
$0.19/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning)
56.2 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
19.4 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
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct is 3.2x cheaper on input tokens than Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct generates about 2.1x as many tokens per second as Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning) leads Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct by 20.1 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct leads Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning) by 6.3 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning)
NVIDIA
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick NV Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning) | Al Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.60/1M | $0.19/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.80/1M | $0.84/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.90/1M | $0.35/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | NVIDIA | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 7, 2025 | Jul 31, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 51.4 tok/s | 107.5 tok/s |
| TTFT | 775ms | 1495ms |
| Latency | 39690ms | 1495ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 60.9 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 56.2 | 36.1 |
| Intelligence | 15.0 | 20.0 |
| Coding | 13.1 | 19.4 |
| Math | 63.7 | 29.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 72.8% | 51.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 82.5% | 70.6% |
| HLE | 8.1% | 4.0% |
| LiveCodeBench | 64.1% | 40.3% |
| MATH 500 | 95.2% | 89.3% |
| AIME 2025 | 63.7% | 29.0% |
| AIME (Original) | 74.7% | 29.7% |
| SciCode | 34.7% | 27.8% |
| LCR | 7.3% | 29.0% |
| IFBench | 38.2% | 32.7% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 11.4% | 34.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 2.3% | 15.2% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct offers the best value at $0.19/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 56.2 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct reaches a 19.4 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
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
