Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning vs Qwen3 Coder Flash

Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Nemotron 3.5 LightningNVIDIA
Coding
22.6
Overall
12.9
Output $/M
$0.147
Qwen3 Coder FlashQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.975
vs $0.147 vs $0.975 per 1M output tokens. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is 6.6x cheaper.

Decision reading

Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has a coding score, 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 Coder Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Qwen3 Coder Flash has the edge where the context window is larger, 1M against 262K tokens.

Shared results
0
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only
20
Qwen3 Coder Flash only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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 Lightning 22.6 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3 Coder Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
No category has a result for both models.
Widest single gap
No benchmark has a result for both models.
Output price
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.147 against Qwen3 Coder Flash $0.975 per million output tokens, 6.6x apart.
Context window
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning takes 262K tokens, Qwen3 Coder Flash 1M.

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.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen3 Coder Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen3 Coder FlashLeader
AA Coding Index26.8Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)52.8%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Code migration (Vals AI)3.0%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)10.9%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)29.5%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
SciCode32.1%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
ALE-Bench769.2Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen3 Coder Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen3 Coder FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index12.9Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen3 Coder Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen3 Coder FlashLeader
AA Agentic Index3.5Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)18.5%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)2.6%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)2.9%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)17.0%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen3 Coder Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen3 Coder FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)74.3%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)10.6%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen3 Coder Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen3 Coder FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 13 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen3 Coder Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen3 Coder FlashLeader
CorpFin (Vals AI)54.2%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen3 Coder Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen3 Coder FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen3 Coder Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen3 Coder FlashLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)4.3%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)60.3%Not measuredOnly Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen3 Coder Flash
BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen3 Coder FlashLeader
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$0.0001Fits in one request
Qwen3 Coder Flash$0.0007Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning$0.0031Fits in one request
Qwen3 Coder Flash$0.013Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning$0.012Fits in one request
Qwen3 Coder Flash$0.049Fits in one request

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.

Specifications of Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen3 Coder Flash
SpecificationNVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 LightningQwen3 Coder Flash
MakerNVIDIAQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 11, 2026September 17, 2025
Context window262K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.0534$0.195
Output $/Mtok$0.147$0.975
Coding index22.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved task$0.06Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nemotron 3.5 Lightning better than Qwen3 Coder Flash for coding?

Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has a coding score, 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 Coder Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Qwen3 Coder Flash has the edge where the context window is larger, 1M against 262K tokens.

Which is cheaper, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning or Qwen3 Coder Flash?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs $0.0534 per million input tokens and $0.147 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Flash costs $0.195 and $0.975. Cost per solved task is known for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only.

Which has the bigger context window, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning or Qwen3 Coder Flash?

Qwen3 Coder Flash, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Nemotron 3.5 Lightning vs Qwen3 Coder Flash comparison based on?

0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 Coder Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next