Compare/DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)vsNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

DeepSeek

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)

Input
$0.14/M
Output
$0.28/M
Speed
TTFT
NVIDIA

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning

Input
$0.075/M
Output
$0.3/M
Speed
319 tok/s
TTFT
0.54s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
Faster (tok/s)
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
Lower Latency
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
Benchmarks (7-0)
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)

Pricing Comparison

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
Input ($/M tokens)$0.14$0.075
Output ($/M tokens)$0.28$0.3
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)$0.17
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning$0.10

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
319 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
0.54s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) wins the overall benchmark matchup 7–0 across 7 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 0.9× the per-million-token cost, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) is strongest on GPQA Diamond (87%), IFBench (73%), Coding Index (52.0). Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning leads on IFBench (63%), GPQA Diamond (47%), SciCode (28%).

Speed. On throughput, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning generates tokens at 319 tok/s versus 0 tok/s — about 100% faster. On time-to-first-token, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) responds in 0ms vs 539ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. DeepSeek and NVIDIA sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: DeepSeek tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while NVIDIA often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) costs $8.40 ($101/year); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning costs $6.75 ($81/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $1.26/run, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning ≈ $0.97/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $56/run, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning ≈ $45/run. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) wins 7 more benchmarks than its opponent — a margin wide enough to call the comparison settled on benchmark terms alone.
  • On throughput, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning is 31919.20× faster (319 tok/s vs 0 tok/s). For streaming chat or real-time agents this alone often flips the recommendation.
  • Time-to-first-token differs by 5390.0× — DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) responds in 0ms vs 539ms. For interactive chat UIs this can matter more than raw benchmark wins.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
37.514.9
Coding Index
52.013.8
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
86.7%46.9%
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
27.8%5.3%
SciCode
42.0%27.8%
IFBench
73.5%63.2%
TerminalBench
38.6%8.3%
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)7 wins
0 winsNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning?

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.13/M tokens vs $0.17/M for DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) wins 7 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning generates tokens faster at 319 tok/s vs 0 tok/s. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) also has lower time-to-first-token (0.00s vs 0.54s).

When should I use DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning?

Choose based on your priorities: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning for lower cost, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) for stronger benchmark performance, and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.