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 | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $2.00 |
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. | — | $8.00 |
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. | — | $0.50 |
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. | $0.05Crusoe | $2.00Azure |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.20Crusoe | $8.00Azure |
| 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. | 28% | 14% |
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. | — | 54.6% |
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% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 73% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | OpenAI |
| Release date | Dec 15 2025 | Apr 14 2025 |
| Access | Open Source | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Nemotron 3 NanovsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-4.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3 NanovsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-4.1vsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron 3 NanovsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-4.1vsMuse Spark 1.3Nemotron 3 NanovsGrok 4.7GPT-4.1vsGrok 4.7Nemotron 3 NanovsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-4.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron 3 NanovsMistral Large 4GPT-4.1vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Nemotron 3 Nano leads GPT-4.1 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Only GPT-4.1 has a verified first-party API price: $2.00 per million input tokens and $8.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Nemotron 3 Nano. GPT-4.1 shipped 245 days before Nemotron 3 Nano, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Nemotron 3 Nano is open source, while GPT-4.1 is closed.
On BullshitBench v2, Nemotron 3 Nano leads at 28% vs GPT-4.1 at 14%.