Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.34 | $0.09 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $0.34 | $0.36 |
Verdict. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.
Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 0.9× the per-million-token cost, Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) is strongest on Intelligence Index (5.4). Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning leads on Coding Index (13.8), Intelligence Index (10.3).
Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.
Provider. Meta and NVIDIA sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Meta 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): Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) costs $15.30 ($184/year); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning costs $8.10 ($97/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) ≈ $2.38/run, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning ≈ $1.17/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) ≈ $102/run, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning ≈ $54/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.
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.16/M tokens vs $0.34/M for Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision).
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) generates tokens faster at 22 tok/s vs — tok/s. Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) also has lower time-to-first-token (1.27s vs —s).
Choose based on your priorities: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning for lower cost, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning for stronger benchmark performance, and Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.