Model Comparison
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · NVIDIA, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) 13 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
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
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)
55.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
15.8 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 14x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) leads Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) by 38.5 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) by 1.3 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) wins 13 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Math.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
NVIDIA
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | NV Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Al Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.05/1M | $0.70/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.20/1M | $8.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.09/1M | $2.63/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | NVIDIA | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Dec 15, 2025 | Oct 21, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 93.0 tok/s | 96.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | 311ms | 1124ms |
| Latency | 311ms | 21888ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 10.9 |
| Reasoning Score | 16.9 | 55.4 |
| Intelligence | 13.2 | 24.7 |
| Coding | 15.8 | 14.5 |
| Math | 13.3 | 84.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 39.9% | 73.3% |
| MMLU Pro | 57.9% | 81.8% |
| HLE | 4.6% | 9.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | 36.0% | 73.8% |
| AIME 2025 | 13.3% | 84.7% |
| SciCode | 23.0% | 28.5% |
| LCR | 6.7% | 55.3% |
| IFBench | 37.5% | 59.4% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 25.4% | 45.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 12.1% | 7.6% |
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.
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 55.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 15.8 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
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
