Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) | Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.2 | $0.6 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $2.4 | $2.4 |
Verdict. Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (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 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) is strongest on Intelligence Index (7.6). Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) leads on Coding Index (49.3), Intelligence Index (23.4).
Speed. On throughput, Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) generates tokens at 204 tok/s versus 105 tok/s — about 49% faster. On time-to-first-token, Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) responds in 1990ms vs 2280ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
Provider. Alibaba and NVIDIA sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Alibaba 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): Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) costs $42.00 ($504/year); Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) costs $54.00 ($648/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) ≈ $5.80/run, Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) ≈ $7.80/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) ≈ $280/run, Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) ≈ $360/run. Qwen3 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
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.75/M tokens vs $1.05/M for Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning).
Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) generates tokens faster at 204 tok/s vs 105 tok/s. However, Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) has lower time-to-first-token (1.99s vs 2.28s).
Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) for lower cost, Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) for stronger benchmark performance, and Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B (Reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.