NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 vs gpt-oss-120b
At a Glance
| Compare |  gpt-oss-120bOpenAI | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v4.4 | #43 of 570.0 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 0.0–66.7 | #43 of 570.0 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 0.0–66.7 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.050Openrouter ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.0296Openrouter ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.20Openrouter ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.136Openrouter ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 262K | 131K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 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
| Benchmark | NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-10-15-a64ca3b12b6e · arena_rating · leader | 1,347.8299% of row best · rating · nvidia-nemotron-3-nano-30b-a3b-bf16; 95% CI [1342.43511795, 1353.20837526]; votes 15770; rank 209 | 1,365.51100% of row best · rating · gpt-oss-120b; 95% CI [1361.16495776, 1369.85717870]; votes 30206; rank 192 |
| 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-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | NVIDIA | OpenAI |
| Family | Nvidia Nemotron 3 Nano 30b A3b Bf16 | Gpt Oss 120b |
| Model | NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 | gpt-oss-120b |
| Version | NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 | gpt-oss-120b |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-12-15 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-11-28 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 262K | 131K |
| Total parameters | 31.6B | 116.8B |
| Active parameters | 3.5B | 5.1B |
| License | other | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) | Cerebras (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Serverless, Standard), Groq (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Serverless, Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 Capabilities
gpt-oss-120b Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | family variantstext | ||
 Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
 Gemma 4 31BGoogle DeepMind | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
 Ministral-3-14B-Reasoning-2512Mistral AI | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
Qwen3-Coder-NextQwen | vs | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 vs gpt-oss-120b FAQs
Is NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 or gpt-oss-120b better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 and gpt-oss-120b, 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 gpt-oss-120b?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is $0.050 and gpt-oss-120b is $0.0296 per million tokens, so gpt-oss-120b is cheaper on this metric. NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is $0.20 and gpt-oss-120b is $0.136 per million tokens, so gpt-oss-120b is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 or gpt-oss-120b?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 has the larger sourced context window. NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 supports 262,144 tokens and gpt-oss-120b supports 131,072 tokens.
Which performs better in benchmarks, NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 or gpt-oss-120b?+
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 gpt-oss-120b be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is open weight; gpt-oss-120b is open weight.
Can NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 and gpt-oss-120b understand images?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is not documented with image input; gpt-oss-120b 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 gpt-oss-120b?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 has a sourced maximum output of 1,048,576 tokens; gpt-oss-120b's maximum output is not reported. A larger limit cannot be determined.
Do NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 and gpt-oss-120b support reasoning and tool use?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16: reasoning and tool calling. gpt-oss-120b: 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 gpt-oss-120b?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 has 3 sourced provider routes; gpt-oss-120b has 7, so gpt-oss-120b has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 or gpt-oss-120b?+
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.