Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
Margin
20.0pts
← winning
44.24/100
1 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (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 Opus 4.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 18 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 41 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 11 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Opus 4.5 only
41
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
11
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.22 to 44.24. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 71.7 against 32. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFBench, 58% to 74.2%. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 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. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7Margin← 39.7Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1Margin→ 18.2Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9Margin→ 6.4Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5Margin→ 4.7Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6MarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5MarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B

  1. IFBench

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 58%B 74.2%
    Winner: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BΔ 16.2
    IFBench: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 58%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 74.2%. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87%B 72.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 14.8
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 87%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 72.2%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.5%B 77.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 12.2
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 89.5%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 77.3%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  4. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 68.5%B 76.3%
    Winner: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BΔ 7.8
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 68.5%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 76.3%. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 outputNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256KNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%47.4%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%—Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%45.3%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —0.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —467Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%27.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SciCodeSource —32%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —13.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%35.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
CritPtSource 0.3%0.0%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
GPQASource 87%72.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%77.3%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%14.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%46.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%5.3%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%-56.0%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%14.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%83.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —72.2%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
AIME26Source 95.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%—Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
AIME 2025Source —82.1%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
MultimodalNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%76.3%Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%57.8%Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%53.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1277—Not comparable
MMMUSource —70.8%Not comparable
MMLongBench-DocSource —57.5%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
Inst. FollowingNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BResult
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%74.2%Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%63.2%Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 44.24. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFBench, where the scores are 58% and 74.2%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 58.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 32. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 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 69.9. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, Claude Opus 4.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 74.2 versus 69.5. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.