NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 vs GLM 5.2

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5UnrankedNot 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 estimateUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort#12 of 44$0.056 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5UnrankedNot 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$0.050Openrouter · Aug 29, 2026$0.75Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.20Openrouter · Aug 29, 2026$2.40Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K1,049K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 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

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkNVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16GLM-5.2
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,348.4492% of row best · rating · nvidia-nemotron-3-nano-30b-a3b-bf16; 95% CI [1342.98546755, 1353.88978012]; votes 15325; rank 1951,466.93100% 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 above0 benchmark winsNo overall winner1 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

FieldNVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16GLM-5.2
DeveloperNVIDIAZ.ai
FamilyNvidia Nemotron 3 Nano 30b A3b Bf16Glm 5 2
ModelNVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16GLM-5.2
VersionNVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16GLM-5.2
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2025-12-15Unknown
Knowledge cutoff2025-11-28Unknown
Input modalitiesTextText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K1,049K
Total parameters31.6B753.3B
Active parameters3.5BUnknown
Licenseothermit
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessHugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDnvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16

GLM 5.2 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers5
Canonical IDzai-org/GLM-5.2

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 vs GLM 5.2 FAQs

Is NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 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 Nano 30B A3B BF16 or GLM 5.2?+

NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is $0.050 and GLM 5.2 is $0.75 per million tokens, so NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is cheaper on this metric. NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is $0.20 and GLM 5.2 is $2.40 per million tokens, so NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 or GLM 5.2?+

GLM 5.2 has the larger sourced context window. NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 supports 262K and GLM 5.2 supports 1,049K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 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 Nano 30B A3B BF16 or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.

Can NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 and GLM 5.2 understand images?+

NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 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 Nano 30B A3B BF16 or GLM 5.2?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is 1,049K and GLM 5.2 is —.

Do NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+

NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16: 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 Nano 30B A3B BF16 or GLM 5.2?+

NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 has 3 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 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.

Send Feedback