Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5 Turbo vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B

GLM 5 Turbo leads Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 26.6 to 8.9, and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B costs 18.2x less per output token ($0.22 vs $4.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5 TurboZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$4.00
7
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BNVIDIA
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.22
0
vs boards won of 7 shared

GLM 5 Turbo or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Shared results
7
GLM 5 Turbo only
9
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B only
35
Like-for-like categories
5 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 Turbo not benchmarked, Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 57.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: GLM 5 Turbo 98.5% against Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B 40.9%, 57.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5 Turbo $4.00 against Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B $0.22 per million output tokens, 18.2x apart.
Context window
GLM 5 Turbo takes 203K 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 TurboBarsNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BTies
Coding10
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning20
General20
All shared boards70
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5 Turbo and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5 TurboNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured14.4Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured74.1%Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
SciCodeNot measured30.6%Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)33.3%13.6%GLM 5 Turbo
ALE-Bench634.0Not measuredOnly GLM 5 Turbo measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1378Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1383Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5 Turbo and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5 TurboNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
AA Intelligence Index26.68.9GLM 5 Turbo
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5 Turbo and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5 TurboNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured1.0Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom98.5%40.9%GLM 5 Turbo
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5 Turbo and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5 TurboNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)84.7%75.7%GLM 5 Turbo
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)27.8%11.4%GLM 5 Turbo
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1348Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1355Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1376Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 5 Turbo and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5 TurboNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
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
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1371Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1375Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5 Turbo and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5 TurboNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured79.4%Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1353Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1349Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1341Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1346Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5 Turbo and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5 TurboNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
Design Arena: websites1262Not measuredOnly GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: UI components1260Not measuredOnly GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: game dev1248Not measuredOnly GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: data viz1264Not measuredOnly GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: 3D1247Not measuredOnly GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: all code categories1261Not measuredOnly GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: SVG1205Not measuredOnly GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1160Not measuredOnly GLM 5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for GLM 5 Turbo and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5 TurboNemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BLeader
IFBench73.2%71.1%GLM 5 Turbo
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.7%38.0%GLM 5 Turbo
LMArena TextNot measured1348Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1303Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1269Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1377Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1320Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1383Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1348Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1268Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1269Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1396Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1376Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1304Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1303Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1319Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1300Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1283Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1293Only Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5 Turbo and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5 TurboNemotron 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 Turbo$0.0032Fits 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 Turbo$0.072Fits 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 Turbo$0.280Exceeds 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 Turbo and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5 TurboNVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
MakerZ.aiNVIDIA
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 15, 2026December 14, 2025
Context window203K262K
Input $/Mtok$1.20$0.055
Output $/Mtok$4.00$0.22
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5 Turbo better than Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5 Turbo or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B?

GLM 5 Turbo costs $1.20 per million input tokens and $4.00 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B costs $0.055 and $0.22. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5 Turbo or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B?

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B, with 262K tokens against 203K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5 Turbo vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B comparison based on?

7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5 Turbo's coding index rests on 0 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