Compare / Claude Fable 5.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 21 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Claude Fable 5.1 or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B? The short answer
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B is cheaper: $0.088 against $20.00 per million tokens, 229 times less.
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 53.4 against 8.9.
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B writes faster: 220 tokens a second against 71.
- On our business benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.1 ranks higher for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.
At a glance
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $10.00 in · $50.00 out | $0.050 in · $0.20 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $20.00 | $0.088 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $20.00 (Azure) | $0.088 (Crusoe, FP8) |
| Intelligence Index | 53.4 | 8.9 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 65 | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 71 | 220 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Developer based in | the US | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among models available today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. The better rank is in green.
| Use case | Claude Fable 5.1 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live | 14 of 19 | not measured |
| Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is | 6 of 18 | not measured |
| Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending | 6 of 18 | not measured |
| Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls | 14 of 161 | 145 of 161 |
| Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects | 4 of 51 | not measured |
| Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge | 4 of 195 | 130 of 195 |
| WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality | 15 of 187 | 169 of 187 |
| Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers | 4 of 153 | 121 of 153 |
| Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess) | 22 of 22 | not measured |
Every shared result
| Benchmark | Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,501 | 1,362 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Business, management and financeArena rating | 1,485 | 1,317 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Creative writingArena rating | 1,484 | 1,241 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Expert promptsArena rating | 1,516 | 1,331 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Instruction followingArena rating | 1,497 | 1,291 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,501 | 1,313 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Writing, literature and languageArena rating | 1,496 | 1,267 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score | 81.6 | 14.4 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score | 53.4 | 8.90 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | GPQA Diamond% of questions | 93.7% | 75.7% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Humanity's Last Exam% of questions | 59.1% | 11.4% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions | 85.3% | 38.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Output speedtokens per second | 70.6 | 220 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | SciCode% of problems | 63.1% | 30.6% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks | 91.4% | 6.7% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks | 55.1% | 0.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Time to first answer tokenseconds | 2.11 | 0.43 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Τ-bench banking% of tasks | 47.2% | 6.0% |
| UGI Leaderboardreported | Requested-length error% off the requested word count | 3.0% | 35.0% |
| UGI Leaderboardreported | Style adherencescore from 0 to 1 | 0.43 | 0.28 |
| UGI Leaderboardreported | Writing scorescore out of 100 | 63.9 | 25.9 |
Bold green marks the better value on that metric. Where a source reports ranges that overlap, the difference may not be meaningful; see the benchmark page for ranges.
Quick answers
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B?
It depends on the task. Among models available today, on our benchmarks and licensed sources, Claude Fable 5.1 ranks higher for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B costs $0.088 per million tokens (three input to one output), against $20.00 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.1 or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B writes about 220 tokens a second on its usual API, against 71 for Claude Fable 5.1 (Artificial Analysis).
Run Claude Fable 5.1 and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.