Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs 2.3x less per output token than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.20 vs $0.47 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Replace Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety Replace Qwen3.8 Flash
Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyNVIDIA
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.20
Qwen3.8 FlashQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.47
vs $0.20 vs $0.47 per 1M output tokens. Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety is 2.3x cheaper.

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety or Qwen3.8 Flash: which to pick

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

Pick Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($0.20 vs $0.47 per million).

Model ANemotron 3.5 Content SafetyNVIDIANot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3.8 FlashQwenNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved task

No benchmark has tested both yet. Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety has none yet; Qwen3.8 Flash on LiveBench coding, LiveBench research and LiveBench browser. Compare them on price and context instead.

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
Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety not benchmarked, Qwen3.8 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety $0.20 against Qwen3.8 Flash $0.47 per million output tokens, 2.3x apart.
Context window
Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety takes 131K tokens, Qwen3.8 Flash 1M.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index1 board measured
Coding benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 Content SafetyQwen3.8 FlashLeader
LiveBench codingNot measured87.4%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 Content SafetyQwen3.8 FlashLeader
LiveBench researchNot measured74.6%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
LiveBench browserNot measured48.0%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured37.1%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 Content SafetyQwen3.8 FlashLeader
LiveBench reasoningNot measured87.4%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Web design benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 Content SafetyQwen3.8 FlashLeader
LiveBench designNot measured72.8%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
General benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 Content SafetyQwen3.8 FlashLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured74.2%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 47 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 Content Safety$0.0003Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Flash$0.0004Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety$0.011Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Flash$0.0089Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety$0.042Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.8 Flash$0.035Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety and Qwen3.8 Flash
SpecificationNVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyQwen3.8 Flash
MakerNVIDIAQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJune 4, 2026August 26, 2026
Context window131K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.20$0.15
Output $/Mtok$0.20$0.47
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it01
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety better than Qwen3.8 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($0.20 vs $0.47 per million).

Which is cheaper, Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15 and $0.47. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash, with 1M tokens against 131K.

Has any benchmark tested both Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety and Qwen3.8 Flash?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety has none yet; Qwen3.8 Flash on LiveBench coding, LiveBench research and LiveBench browser. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next