Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B comes out ahead, 71 to 34 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
34/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context262K
- Our pick
NVIDIANemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
71/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.20
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is our pick
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 71/100 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (34). It leads on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B $0.087 · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameQwen3.8 2.4T A95B 262,144 · Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Text · Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 27 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 34/100 | 71/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen) | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $2.00 | $0.05 (best) |
| Output | $6.00 | $0.20 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 | $0.087 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 21 providers | Median of 9 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Openqwen3.8-max | Open |
| API model ID | — | nvidia/nemotron-3.5-lightning-30b-a3b |
| API providers | 21 (best) | 12 |
| Released | Aug 12, 2026 | Aug 11, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$32.00
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B$0.90
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 71/100 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (34). It leads on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers; free on Nvidia). Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 21 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.087 per million tokens for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B versus $3.00 for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (34× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has not been scored yet and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B up to 131,072, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B accepts text; Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (qwen3.8-max), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is the newest, released Aug 12, 2026. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B came out Aug 11, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedThree-way comparison
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedMoonshot AI
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs ParetoUnbiased
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Sakana NamazuSakana AI
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Command A PlusCohere
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Laguna XS 2.1Poolside
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Ling 3.0 Flash FininclusionAI
