Compare/Step 3.5 Flash 2603 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning

Step 3.5 Flash 2603vsNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning

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

StepFun

Step 3.5 Flash 2603

Input
$0.1/M
Output
$0.3/M
Speed
214 tok/s
TTFT
1.14s
NVIDIA

Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning

Input
$0.07/M
Output
$0.3/M
Speed
326 tok/s
TTFT
1.04s

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 (1-1)
Tie

Pricing Comparison

MetricStep 3.5 Flash 2603Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
Input ($/M tokens)$0.1$0.07
Output ($/M tokens)$0.3$0.3
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Step 3.5 Flash 2603$0.13
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning$0.10

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
214 tok/s
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
326 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
1.14s
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
1.04s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Step 3.5 Flash 2603 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning split the benchmark comparison evenly at 1–1. The tiebreaker here is price, speed, and what you actually run them on.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is strongest on Intelligence Index (26.5). Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning leads on Intelligence Index (15.0), Coding Index (13.8).

Speed. On throughput, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning generates tokens at 326 tok/s versus 214 tok/s — about 34% faster. On time-to-first-token, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning responds in 1040ms vs 1140ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. StepFun and NVIDIA sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: StepFun 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): Step 3.5 Flash 2603 costs $7.50 ($90/year); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning costs $6.60 ($79/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Step 3.5 Flash 2603 ≈ $1.10/run, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning ≈ $0.95/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Step 3.5 Flash 2603 ≈ $50/run, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning ≈ $44/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.

Head-to-head deltas

  • Benchmark wins tie exactly at 1–1. The tiebreaker on raw benchmark parity will be price, speed, or capability coverage.
  • On throughput, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning is 1.53× faster (326 tok/s vs 214 tok/s). For streaming chat or real-time agents this alone often flips the recommendation.
  • Aggregate benchmark score (sum across 12 categories, capped at 100): Step 3.5 Flash 2603 = 27, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning = 29. Within 15% — effectively equivalent if both meet the threshold your product requires.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
26.515.0
Coding Index
13.8
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Step 3.5 Flash 26031 wins
1 winsNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 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 $0.15/M for Step 3.5 Flash 2603.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

It's a tie — both models win 1 benchmarks each across 12 evaluated categories. 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 326 tok/s vs 214 tok/s. However, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning has lower time-to-first-token (1.04s vs 1.14s).

When should I use Step 3.5 Flash 2603 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning?

Choose based on your priorities: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning for lower cost, both perform similarly on benchmarks, and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.