gpt-oss:20b
Checking current pricing…
Chat comparison
gpt-oss:20bvsnemotron-3-nano:30b
Compare the things that matter before you build: current price, capabilities, and latest aggregated LLM7 statistics.
Current pricing
See the cost difference clearly
nemotron-3-nano:30b
Checking current pricing…
What's different
Only capabilities that differ between these models are listed. Green highlights the broader supported option or larger context window.
Context window
gpt-oss:20b
128,000 tokens
nemotron-3-nano:30bBetter fit
1,000,000 tokens
JSON mode
gpt-oss:20bBetter fit
Supported
nemotron-3-nano:30b
Not supported
Reasoning
gpt-oss:20b
Not supported
nemotron-3-nano:30bBetter fit
Supported
Capability scores
AI-estimated ratings on 30 criteria from head-to-head comparisons against 86 other text models in the LLM7 catalog, judged by TypeSafe Jev from public information (2026-10-20). Each score is the win rate against the field, relative to the strongest model for that criterion (100%). Not a benchmark.
Below 50%50–79%80–94%95%+
gpt-oss:20b · leads in 4
30%
Weak
nemotron-3-nano:30b · leads in 23
39%
Weak
Knowledge & reasoning
General knowledge
gpt-oss:20b26%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads28%Logical reasoning
gpt-oss:20b14%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads44%Mathematics
gpt-oss:20b23%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads47%Scientific and technical depth
gpt-oss:20b24%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads41%Planning and task decomposition
gpt-oss:20b15%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads43%
Coding & tools
Code generation
gpt-oss:20b32%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads35%Debugging and code review
gpt-oss:20b26%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads43%Agentic coding
gpt-oss:20b26%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads48%Tool and function calling
gpt-oss:20b30%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads37%SQL and query writing
gpt-oss:20b27%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads39%
Writing & language
Creative writing
gpt-oss:20b26%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads28%Professional writing
gpt-oss:20b24%nemotron-3-nano:30b24%Conversational quality
gpt-oss:20b21%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads29%Multilingual ability
gpt-oss:20b28%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads43%Translation
gpt-oss:20b25%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads35%Summarization
gpt-oss:20b21%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads47%
Data & professional work
Data analysis
gpt-oss:20b22%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads40%Professional domains
gpt-oss:20b19%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads29%Information extraction
gpt-oss:20bLeads30%nemotron-3-nano:30b25%Classification and labeling
gpt-oss:20b31%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads43%Long-context handling
gpt-oss:20b26%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads70%
Reliability & control
Instruction following
gpt-oss:20bLeads23%nemotron-3-nano:30b21%Structured output
gpt-oss:20bLeads46%nemotron-3-nano:30b8%Factual accuracy
gpt-oss:20b25%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads34%Safety and alignment
gpt-oss:20b24%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads29%Steerability
gpt-oss:20b23%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads31%Output consistency
gpt-oss:20bLeads51%nemotron-3-nano:30b40%
Speed, cost & vision
Response speed
gpt-oss:20b69%nemotron-3-nano:30bLeads71%Cost efficiency
gpt-oss:20b80%nemotron-3-nano:30b80%Image understanding
gpt-oss:20bNo image inputnemotron-3-nano:30bNo image input
Latest LLM7 statistics
Recent aggregated percentages and response-time metrics from LLM7, not a global model benchmark or traffic disclosure.
Recent stability
gpt-oss:20b
99.11%
nemotron-3-nano:30b
98.3%
Average response time
gpt-oss:20b
2,686.07 ms
nemotron-3-nano:30b
3,194.26 ms
P95 API latency
gpt-oss:20b
10,000 ms
nemotron-3-nano:30b
10,000 ms
Side-by-side trends
Shared charts make the observed differences easier to read. Metrics without enough history stay hidden.
Request success rate
Both models on the same scale
gpt-oss:20b: 99.3%nemotron-3-nano:30b: 99%
Average API latency
Both models on the same scale
gpt-oss:20b: 2,509 msnemotron-3-nano:30b: 4,647 ms
P95 API latency
Both models on the same scale
gpt-oss:20b: 10,000 msnemotron-3-nano:30b: 10,000 ms
Estimate your workload
Published rates are loaded from the pricing API; per-request quotes are billed from actual provider usage.
Checking current pricing…
Checking current pricing…
Quick take
- nemotron-3-nano:30b has a larger context window.
- The recent stability rates are too close to distinguish meaningfully.