Qwen3.8 27B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#30 of 4654.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.0–69.4UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#16 of 44$0.072 per LiveBench case#19 of 44$0.092 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#17 of 3854.8 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 45.8–62.5UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.20Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$0.50Openrouter · Aug 29, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$2.50Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$2.20Openrouter · Aug 29, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K262K
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 →
BenchmarkQwen3.8-27BNVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Ultra-550B-A55B-BF16
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader78.02100% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-27b · 28,740 output tokens / case73.4994% of row best · percent · nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b · 41,654 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above1 benchmark winNo overall winner0 benchmark winsNo 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

FieldQwen3.8-27BNVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Ultra-550B-A55B-BF16
DeveloperQwenNVIDIA
FamilyQwen3 8 27bNvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra 550b A55b Bf16
ModelQwen3.8-27BNVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Ultra-550B-A55B-BF16
VersionQwen3.8-27BNVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Ultra-550B-A55B-BF16
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknown2026-06-04
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K262K
Total parameters27.8B560.5B
Active parametersUnknown55B
Licenseapache-2.0other
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDQwen/Qwen3.8-27B

NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDnvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Ultra-550B-A55B-BF16

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Qwen3.8 27B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 FAQs

Is Qwen3.8 27B or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 27B and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16?+

Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 is $0.50 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 27B is $2.50 and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 is $2.20 per million tokens, so NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.8 27B or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16?+

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Qwen3.8 27B is 262K and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 is 262K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 27B or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16?+

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

Can Qwen3.8 27B or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Qwen3.8 27B is open weight; NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 is open weight.

Can Qwen3.8 27B and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 understand images?+

Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input; NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8 27B or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.8 27B is 131K and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 is —.

Do Qwen3.8 27B and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 support reasoning and tool use?+

Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.8 27B or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16?+

Qwen3.8 27B has 3 sourced provider routes; NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16 has 3, a tie.

Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 27B or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B BF16?+

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