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. | 550B | 235B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 128k |
| 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. | — | $0.70 |
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. | — | $2.80 |
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. | $0.50DeepInfra | $0.08DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $2.20DeepInfra | $0.22NextBit |
| 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. | 49% | 6% |
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. | 71.9% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 56.4% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 44.4% | — |
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. | 26.7% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 86.7% | — |
AA Intelligence IndexOverall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | 48 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | Qwen |
| Release date | Jun 4 2026 | Apr 29 2025 |
| Access | Open Source | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Nemotron 3 UltravsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3vsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3 UltravsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3vsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron 3 UltravsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3vsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron 3 UltravsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3vsMuse Spark 1.3Nemotron 3 UltravsGrok 4.7Qwen3vsGrok 4.7Nemotron 3 UltravsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFrequently asked questions
Nemotron 3 Ultra leads Qwen3 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Only Qwen3 has a verified first-party API price: $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Nemotron 3 Ultra. Qwen3 shipped 401 days before Nemotron 3 Ultra, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Nemotron 3 Ultra has 550B parameters, while Qwen3 has 235B. Nemotron 3 Ultra is open source, while Qwen3 is open weight.
On BullshitBench v2, Nemotron 3 Ultra leads at 49% vs Qwen3 at 6%.