Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B #151 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 15 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 20
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Fable 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 83.68 to 44.24. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Fable 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 89.2 against 32. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 256K for Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | Margin← 57.2 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | Margin→ 18.4 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1748 | 467 | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 45.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.4% | 0.0% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1574 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 51.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 26.8% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 62.9% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | — | 47.4% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 80% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.5% | — | Not comparable |
| VulcanBench v3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 76.5% | 13.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | 27.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SciCodeSource | — | 32% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 14.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 46.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 5.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | -56.0% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 14.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 83.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
MultimodalNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blueprint-Bench 2Source | 38.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1332 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLongBench-DocSource | — | 57.5% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 53.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 44.24.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 32. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 57.9. Claude Fable 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.