NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Ternary Bonsai 1.7B

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B and Ternary Bonsai 1.7B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Neither model has a directly sourced input price in this comparison. Neither model has a directly sourced output price in this comparison.

NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B has the larger sourced context window. NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B supports 1,049K and Ternary Bonsai 1.7B supports 33K.

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is open weight; Ternary Bonsai 1.7B is open weight.

NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is not documented with image input; Ternary Bonsai 1.7B is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is — and Ternary Bonsai 1.7B is —.

NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B: reasoning and tool calling. Ternary Bonsai 1.7B: none of these features are definitively sourced. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B has 1 sourced provider route; Ternary Bonsai 1.7B has 0, so NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B has broader tracked availability.

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.