Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Nemotron 3 Super

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 40.1 on the Noometry Index. Nemotron 3 Super costs 58× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Nemotron 3 Super NVIDIA

40.1

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Nemotron 3 Super in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 18.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 92.1% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 15.4% for Nemotron 3 Super.
  • Nemotron 3 Super is cheaper at $0.08 / $0.45 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Nemotron 3 Super has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
ProviderAnthropicNVIDIA
Noometry Index58.240.1
Released2026-02-042026-03-11
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.08
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.45
Results tracked6821

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Nemotron 3 Super: 39.4 (#158)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
WeirdML78%38%
LMArena Coding15361403
ALE-Bench996.5213.9
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—36%
GSO41.2%—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Nemotron 3 Super: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Nemotron 3 Super: 18.7 (#276)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%15.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271386
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—3.1%
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LMCA55.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Nemotron 3 Super: 39.6 (#101)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%60.4%
LMArena Math15191380
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
ProofBench50%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Nemotron 3 Super: 38.9 (#139)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
LMArena Expert15461398
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Nemotron 3 Super: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Nemotron 3 Super: 48.4 (#144)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
LMArena Non-English14891355
LMArena Chinese15511432
LMArena French15131405
LMArena German15021341
LMArena Russian14971336
LMArena Spanish15101417
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1464—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Nemotron 3 Super: 71.2 (#154)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
LMArena Instruction Following15231347

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Nemotron 3 Super: 41.5 (#139)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
LMArena Longer Query15201362
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Nemotron 3 Super: 55.9 (#140)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Nemotron 3 Super
LMArena Text15031378
LMArena Creative Writing15051317
LMArena Multi-Turn15131369
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Nemotron 3 Super?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 40.1 on the Noometry Index. Nemotron 3 Super costs 58× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Nemotron 3 Super?

Nemotron 3 Super is cheaper. It lists at $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.45 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Nemotron 3 Super better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 39.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Nemotron 3 Super share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Nemotron 3 Super has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper