Model Comparison
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning)
vs. Step 3.5 Flash
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · NVIDIA, StepFun
Recommended Pick
St Step 3.5 Flash 11 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, TTFT, Latency
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
Step 3.5 Flash
31.6 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 (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 1.8x cheaper on input tokens than Step 3.5 Flash.
Speed gap
Step 3.5 Flash generates about 1.5x as many tokens per second as Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) leads Step 3.5 Flash by 11.8 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Step 3.5 Flash leads Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) by 12.6 points on coding.
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 (Reasoning)
NVIDIA
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Step 3.5 Flash
StepFun
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | NV Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning) | Top Pick St Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.06/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.22/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.10/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | NVIDIA | StepFun |
| Release Date | Dec 15, 2025 | Feb 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 124.1 tok/s | 190.6 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1193ms | 963ms |
| Latency | 17313ms | 11455ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 51.2 |
| Reasoning Score | 58.4 | 46.7 |
| Intelligence | 24.3 | 37.8 |
| Coding | 19.0 | 31.6 |
| Math | 91.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 75.7% | 83.1% |
| MMLU Pro | 79.4% | — |
| HLE | 10.2% | 19.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 74.1% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 91.0% | — |
| SciCode | 29.6% | 40.4% |
| LCR | 33.7% | 43.0% |
| IFBench | 71.1% | 64.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 40.9% | 94.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 13.6% | 27.3% |
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.
Step 3.5 Flash reaches a 31.6 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
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Step 3.5 Flash
- Code generation
- Software development
