Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B

GLM 5.1 leads Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 26.1 to 8.9, and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B costs 20.0x less per output token ($0.22 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 38 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 5.1 Replace Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
38
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BNVIDIA
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.22
0
vs boards won of 38 shared

GLM 5.1 or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B: which to pick

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B for output tokens 20.0x cheaper ($0.22 vs $4.40 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens).

Model AGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved taskModel BNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BNVIDIANot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
38
GLM 5.1 only
53
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B only
4
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks, Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 39.8 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: GLM 5.1 97.7% against Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B 40.9%, 56.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.1 $4.40 against Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B $0.22 per million output tokens, 20.0x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 5.1BarsNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BTies
Coding50
Intelligence10
Agentic work20
Reasoning50
Math20
Knowledge40
General190
All shared boards380
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index50
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
LMArena WebDev1508Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
AA Coding Index55.814.4GLM 5.1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)76.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)31.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)25.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)56.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured74.1%Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
SciCode44.8%30.6%GLM 5.1
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%13.6%GLM 5.1
WeirdML57.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ALE-Bench887.1Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding14851378GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14841383GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: React1505Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1508Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
AA Intelligence Index26.18.9GLM 5.1
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
AA Agentic Index23.91.0GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building web apps1175Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1167Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1160Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1181Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1053Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building games1164Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1109Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1162Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheets1315Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)44.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)27.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom97.7%40.9%GLM 5.1
APEX-Agents40.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,634Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MCP Atlas75.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
GPQA Diamond84.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%75.7%GLM 5.1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%11.4%GLM 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)89.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
SimpleBench55.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Chess puzzles20.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14731348GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert14781355GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821376GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
AIME91.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured91.0Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured91.0%Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
OTIS Mock AIME93.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 336.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ProofBench22.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: math14731371GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work14701375GLM 5.1
MathArena20.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
MMLU Pro86.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)51.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)64.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)71.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)41.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured79.4%Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
SimpleQA Verified34.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: science14781353GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14741349GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government14651341GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14521346GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
Design Arena: websites1290Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: UI components1292Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: game dev1264Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: data viz1366Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: 3D1336Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1268Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: SVG1217Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1141Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index190
General benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)61.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)72.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
IFBench76.3%71.1%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.7%38.0%GLM 5.1
ExploitBench18.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text14631348GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14531303GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14531269GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: English14761377GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English14481320GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese15151383GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German14671348GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese14351268GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean14241269GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: French14701396GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish14681376GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian14541304GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish14491303GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14731319GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14671300GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14541283GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14421293GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.0036Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B$0.0002Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B$0.0034Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B$0.013Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GLM 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.1NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
MakerZ.aiNVIDIA
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 7, 2026December 14, 2025
Context window205K262K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.055
Output $/Mtok$4.40$0.22
Coding index49.2Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.60Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.1 better than Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B for coding?

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B for output tokens 20.0x cheaper ($0.22 vs $4.40 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B?

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B costs $0.055 and $0.22. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B?

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B comparison based on?

38 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5.1's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next