Muse Ember vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
Muse Ember leads Nemotron 3.5 Lightning on coding, 64.9 to 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs 2.8x less per output token ($0.18 vs $0.50 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 8 benchmarks have a result for both.
Muse Ember or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: which to pick
Pick Muse Ember for coding: it scores 64.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 22.6 for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning.
Pick Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for output tokens 2.8x cheaper ($0.18 vs $0.50 per million).
- Shared results
- 8
- Muse Ember only
- 7
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only
- 18
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
Muse Ember
Muse Ember scores 64.9 against 22.6.
3 and 2 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has a AA Intelligence Index result, 5.5.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has a AA Agentic Index result, 3.5.
Directional only
General
Vals Index
No call
Only Muse Ember has a Vals Index result, 60.5%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Muse Ember
Muse Ember takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
Muse Ember $0.0003, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has the number, $0.06.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Muse Ember 64.9 from 3 benchmarks, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 22.6 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Coding, 50.4 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): Muse Ember 83.7% against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 0.0%, 83.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Muse Ember $0.50 against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.18 per million output tokens, 2.8x apart.
- Context window
- Muse Ember takes 1.05M tokens, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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.
| Category | Muse Ember | Bars | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 3 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 2 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 8 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
| Benchmark | Muse Ember | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1609 | Not measured | Only Muse Ember measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 26.8 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 52.8% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 39.4% | Not measured | Only Muse Ember measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 83.7% | 0.0% | Muse Ember |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 3.0% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 10.9% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 29.5% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 32.1% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Artificial Analysis run) | 40.9% | 0.5% | Muse Ember |
| FrontierCode 2.0 | 27.2% | 0.0% | Muse Ember |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 769.2 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1616 | Not measured | Only Muse Ember measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1621 | Not measured | Only Muse Ember measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Ember | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 5.5 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Muse Ember | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 3.5 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 18.5% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 38.2% | 2.6% | Muse Ember |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 49.0% | 2.9% | Muse Ember |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | 25.0% | Not measured | Only Muse Ember measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 17.0% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| APEX-Agents | 64.3% | Not measured | Only Muse Ember measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Muse Ember | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 74.3% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 10.6% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 25.1% | 4.5% | Muse Ember |
| CritPt v2, hard subset (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.0% | 1.5% | Muse Ember |
| Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Ember | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 14 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Muse Ember | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 54.2% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| AA-Omniscience | 7.7 | -15.7 | Muse Ember |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Ember | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Ember | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | 60.5% | Not measured | Only Muse Ember measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 4.3% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 60.3% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| GDPval-AA | Not measured | 645 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 45 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Ember | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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.
| Specification | Meta Muse Ember | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meta | NVIDIA |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | November 9, 2026 | August 11, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.10 | $0.055 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.50 | $0.18 |
| Coding index | 64.9 | 22.6 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 3 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $0.06 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Muse Ember better than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for coding?
Pick Muse Ember for coding: it scores 64.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 22.6 for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning. Pick Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for output tokens 2.8x cheaper ($0.18 vs $0.50 per million).
Which is cheaper, Muse Ember or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?
Muse Ember costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs $0.055 and $0.18. Cost per solved task is known for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only.
Which has the bigger context window, Muse Ember or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?
Muse Ember, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Muse Ember vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning comparison based on?
8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of November 14, 2026. Muse Ember's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.