# DeepSeek-R1 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning

> DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek-R1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-r1-vs-nemotron-3-5-lightning
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-R1 scores higher in 7 categories and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where DeepSeek-R1 leads 61.5 to 48.5.
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.16 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $2.15 for DeepSeek-R1.
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 164K.
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek-R1 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | NVIDIA |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 39.3 |
| Rank | 110 | 156 |
| Context | 164K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.50 | $0.06 |
| Output $/M | $2.15 | $0.16 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- DeepSeek-R1: 45.9 (#63)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 39.6 (#143)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1370 |
| Aider Polyglot | 71.4% | — |
| SciCode | 35.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 66.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 804.12 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.7 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- DeepSeek-R1: 30.4 (#68)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | — |
| BALROG | 34.9% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 53.8% | — |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek-R1: 18.7 (#253)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 25.7 (#128)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1415 | 1335 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 40.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 69.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 21.2% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 83.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.3 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | — |

## Math

- DeepSeek-R1: 42.0 (#70)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 34.7 (#156)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1401 | 1355 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 42.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.7% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 96.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek-R1: 44.3 (#81)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 36.9 (#154)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1394 | 1354 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 79.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 66.6% | — |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek-R1: 52.6 (#80)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 44.0 (#175)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1412 | 1292 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1443 | 1356 |
| LMArena French | 1415 | 1369 |
| LMArena German | 1405 | 1280 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1394 | 1213 |
| LMArena Korean | 1359 | 1233 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1257 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1410 | 1321 |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek-R1: 72.2 (#138)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 69.8 (#166)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1382 | 1317 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.5% | — |
| IFEval | 78.4% | — |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 39.9 (#160)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1391 | 1312 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 75% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek-R1: 61.5 (#84)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 48.5 (#198)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1324 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1254 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1500 | 1280 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | 1327 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83% | — |
| WildBench | 82.8% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 48.5% | — |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek-R1 better than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?

DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek-R1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-R1 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.16 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-R1 lists at $0.50 and $2.15.

### Is DeepSeek-R1 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning better for coding?

DeepSeek-R1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.9 versus 39.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning does, with 262K tokens against 164K.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-R1 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-R1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has 18.