// head_to_head

Nemotron 3 Ultra vs GPT Audio Mini

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Nemotron 3 Ultra and GPT Audio Mini are priced within ~10% of each other.

GPT Audio Mini does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

nvidia

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Blended / 1M
$1.05
Context
262K
Released
Jun 4, 2026
Overall score
67.4
reasoningtool callingprompt caching

openai

GPT Audio Mini

Blended / 1M
$1.05
Context
128K
Released
Jan 19, 2026
Overall score
Not evaluated
tool callingaudio input

Specs and pricing

MetricNemotron 3 UltraGPT Audio Mini
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

67.4
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.2118
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$1.05$1.05
Input price / 1M$0.600$0.600
Output price / 1M$2.40$2.40
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.120
Context window262Kwin128K
Max output tokens183Kwin16K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Nemotron 3 Ultra on top, GPT Audio Mini below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
38.7
Coding
70.7
Reasoning
74.7
Mathematics
88.7
Data analysis
54.5
Language
70.8
Instruction following
73.4

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadNemotron 3 UltraGPT Audio Mini
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$301.44/mo$336.00/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$432.00/mo$624.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$403.20/mo$672.00/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$756.00/mo$780.00/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$1,500/mo$1,740/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You need to fit large documents in one call

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Wider context window — 262K against 128K.

Nemotron 3 Ultra vs GPT Audio Mini FAQ

Which is better, Nemotron 3 Ultra or GPT Audio Mini?

Nemotron 3 Ultra and GPT Audio Mini are priced within ~10% of each other. GPT Audio Mini does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is Nemotron 3 Ultra cheaper than GPT Audio Mini?

They cost about the same. Both land near $1.05 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.

Does Nemotron 3 Ultra or GPT Audio Mini have a bigger context window?

Nemotron 3 Ultra has the larger context window: 262K for Nemotron 3 Ultra against 128K for GPT Audio Mini. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.

Do Nemotron 3 Ultra and GPT Audio Mini support prompt caching?

Nemotron 3 Ultra publishes a cached-input rate of $0.120 per million tokens against a full input rate of $0.600. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for GPT Audio Mini, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.