Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 30B |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $1.25 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $10.00 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.125 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.625Google AI Studio | $0.05Novita |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $5.00Google AI Studio | $0.20Novita |
| Benchmarks | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 20% | 28% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 86.4% | 73% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 59.6% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 68.3% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 18.8% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | |
| Release date | Mar 25 2025 | Dec 15 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Source |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.5 ProvsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3 NanovsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 2.5 ProvsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron 3 NanovsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 2.5 ProvsMuse Spark 1.3Nemotron 3 NanovsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 2.5 ProvsGrok 4.7Nemotron 3 NanovsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.5 ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron 3 NanovsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 2.5 ProvsMistral Large 4Nemotron 3 NanovsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Gemini 2.5 Pro and Nemotron 3 Nano are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, GPQA Diamond). Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a verified first-party API price: $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Nemotron 3 Nano. Gemini 2.5 Pro shipped 265 days before Nemotron 3 Nano, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is closed, while Nemotron 3 Nano is open source.
On BullshitBench v2, Nemotron 3 Nano leads at 28% vs Gemini 2.5 Pro at 20%. On GPQA Diamond, Gemini 2.5 Pro leads at 86.4% vs Nemotron 3 Nano at 73%.