Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Apertus 8B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.06 | $0.1 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $0.2 | $0.2 |
Verdict. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 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 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Apertus 8B Instruct is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Apertus 8B Instruct makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is strongest on Coding Index (26.8), Intelligence Index (13.6). Apertus 8B Instruct leads on Intelligence Index (4.8).
Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.
Provider. NVIDIA and Swiss AI Initiative sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: NVIDIA tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Swiss AI Initiative 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): Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs $4.80 ($58/year); Apertus 8B Instruct costs $6.00 ($72/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Nemotron 3.5 Lightning ≈ $0.70/run, Apertus 8B Instruct ≈ $0.90/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Nemotron 3.5 Lightning ≈ $32/run, Apertus 8B Instruct ≈ $40/run. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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 3.5 Lightning is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.10/M tokens vs $0.13/M for Apertus 8B Instruct.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Apertus 8B Instruct. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning generates tokens faster at 302 tok/s vs — tok/s. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning also has lower time-to-first-token (0.57s vs —s).
Choose based on your priorities: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for lower cost, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for stronger benchmark performance, and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.