Back to Value Frontier

Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra

Head-to-head API cost, context, and performance comparison. Synced at 4:42:15 PM.

Executive Summary

When evaluating Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking against NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra, the pricing structure is a key differentiator. NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra is approximately 5% more cost-effective per 1 million tokens overall.

However, when looking at raw reasoning capabilities, NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra leads with a statistical ELO score of 1419. For tasks involving complex logic, coding, or instruction-following, developers might prefer NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra, provided their budget allows for the API burn rate.

Raw Technical comparison

Metric
Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra
Performance (ELO)
1418
1419
Input Cost / 1M
$0.40
$0.60
Output Cost / 1M
$4.00
$3.60
Context Window
131,072 tokens
512,288 tokens

Verdict

If you are looking for pure performance and capability, NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra is statistically superior. However, if API burn rate is the primary concern, NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra wins out aggressively in pricing.

People Also Ask

Is Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking cheaper than NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra?

No. NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra is the more cost-effective model, operating at a lower price point per 1 million tokens.

Which model has the larger context window?

The NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra model has the advantage in memory, offering a massive 512,288 token limit for document ingestion.

Related Comparisons

Compare Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Ling-3.0-flash (free)Compare Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Cohere: North Mini Code (free)Compare Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni (free)Compare Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Google: Gemma 4 31B (free)