Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Qwen3.5 Omni Flash | Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.1 | $0.2 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $0.8 | $0.8 |
Verdict. Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (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 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Qwen3.5 Omni Flash is strongest on Intelligence Index (19.2). Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) leads on Coding Index (37.7), Intelligence Index (25.7).
Speed. On throughput, Qwen3.5 Omni Flash generates tokens at 255 tok/s versus 144 tok/s — about 43% faster. On time-to-first-token, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) responds in 1820ms vs 1840ms, 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): Qwen3.5 Omni Flash costs $15.00 ($180/year); Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) costs $18.00 ($216/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen3.5 Omni Flash ≈ $2.10/run, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) ≈ $2.60/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen3.5 Omni Flash ≈ $100/run, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) ≈ $120/run. Qwen3.5 Omni Flash 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
Qwen3.5 Omni Flash is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.28/M tokens vs $0.35/M for Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning).
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Qwen3.5 Omni Flash. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Qwen3.5 Omni Flash generates tokens faster at 255 tok/s vs 144 tok/s. However, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) has lower time-to-first-token (1.82s vs 1.84s).
Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3.5 Omni Flash for lower cost, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen3.5 Omni Flash for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.