NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs GLM 5.2
At a Glance
| Compare |  GLM 5.2Z.ai | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #23 of 4661.9 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 41.3–74.6 |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #12 of 44$0.056 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #7 of 3861.3 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 51.0–67.6 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.75Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $2.40Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,049K | 1,049K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,330.7291% of row best · rating · nvidia-nemotron-3.5-lightning-30b-a3b-nvfp4; 95% CI [1323.44362436, 1337.99938875]; votes 8338; rank 213 | 1,466.93100% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1462.35303996, 1471.51268346]; votes 36798; rank 29 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | NVIDIA | Z.ai |
| Family | Nvidia Nemotron 3 5 Lightning | Glm 5 2 |
| Model | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B | GLM-5.2 |
| Version | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B | GLM-5.2 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-08-11 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | 30B | 753.3B |
| Active parameters | 3B | Unknown |
| License | openmdw-1.1 | mit |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Fireworks Ai (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B Capabilities
GLM 5.2 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext | |
 Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs GLM 5.2 FAQs
Is NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B and GLM 5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B or GLM 5.2?+
Only GLM 5.2 has a directly sourced input price: $0.75 per million tokens. Only GLM 5.2 has a directly sourced output price: $2.40 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B or GLM 5.2?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is 1,049K and GLM 5.2 is 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B or GLM 5.2?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.
Can NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B and GLM 5.2 understand images?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is not documented with image input; GLM 5.2 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B or GLM 5.2?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is — and GLM 5.2 is —.
Do NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B: reasoning and tool calling. GLM 5.2: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B or GLM 5.2?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B has 1 sourced provider route; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B or GLM 5.2?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.