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

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

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

DeepSeek

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)

Input
$0.14/M
Output
$0.28/M
Speed
111 tok/s
TTFT
0.92s
NVIDIA

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning

Input
$0.075/M
Output
$0.3/M
Speed
323 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
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
Benchmarks (7-0)
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)

Pricing Comparison

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max 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, Max 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, Max Effort)
111 tok/s
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
323 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
0.92s
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
0.54s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max 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, Max Effort) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) is strongest on GPQA Diamond (89%), IFBench (79%), Coding Index (56.2). 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 323 tok/s versus 111 tok/s — about 66% faster. On time-to-first-token, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning responds in 538ms vs 922ms, 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, Max 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, Max 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, Max 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. If you want one safe default, take DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) — it dominates the benchmark table and the latency profile is 2.9× faster. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning only makes sense when you specifically need its pricing tier, an existing contract, or a feature difference that is not measured by the benchmarks above.

Head-to-head deltas

  • DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max 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 2.90× faster (323 tok/s vs 111 tok/s). For streaming chat or real-time agents this alone often flips the recommendation.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
40.314.9
Coding Index
56.213.8
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
89.4%46.9%
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
32.1%5.3%
SciCode
44.9%27.8%
IFBench
79.2%63.2%
TerminalBench
35.6%8.3%
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)7 wins
0 winsNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max 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, Max Effort).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max 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 323 tok/s vs 111 tok/s. However, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning has lower time-to-first-token (0.54s vs 0.92s).

When should I use DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max 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, Max 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.