FLUX.2 is live! High-fidelity image generation made simple.
The open-source LLM landscape is becoming increasingly diverse, with models optimized for reasoning, throughput, cost-efficiency, and real-world agentic applications. Two models that stand out in this new generation are NVIDIA’s Nemotron 3 Nano and OpenAI’s GPT-OSS-20B, both of which offer strong performance while remaining openly available and deployable across cloud and edge systems.
Although both models are powerful, they are built on fundamentally different design philosophies. Nemotron 3 Nano emphasizes hybrid architecture, long-context memory, and agentic behavior, while GPT-OSS-20B prioritizes robustness, speed, and general-purpose performance. These differences shape how each model behaves in real workloads — and especially how they perform on DeepInfra’s optimized inference platform.
This article breaks down the strengths of each model, examines their architectural differences, and compares their real-world efficiency using DeepInfra’s benchmark data.
What Each Model Is Designed to Do
Nemotron 3 Nano: Hybrid Intelligence and Extreme Efficiency
Nemotron 3 Nano is part of NVIDIA’s new Nemotron family, designed specifically for agentic AI systems, long-horizon reasoning, coding, and multi-step workflows. With a hybrid Mamba-Transformer Mixture-of-Experts backbone, the model maintains the efficiency of a compact LLM while behaving like a much larger reasoning engine.
Key design goals include:
- High reasoning accuracy at a small active parameter count
- Fast inference at scale through sparse MoE activation
- Reliability in multi-turn planning, tool use, and agent clusters
- Support for extremely long contexts (up to 1 million tokens)
Nemotron 3 Nano is designed for teams that require a compact yet competent agent model.
GPT-OSS-20B: A High-Speed, General-Purpose Open Model
GPT-OSS-20B represents OpenAI’s push toward openly available, highly performant models. With roughly 20 billion dense parameters, it is designed for general-purpose reasoning, coding, and natural language tasks, offering strong performance without architectural complexity such as expert routing or hybrid sequence models.
Key design goals include:
- Smooth general-purpose reasoning
- Strong coding performance
- Predictable latency
- High throughput for standard workloads
GPT-OSS-20B targets developers who want straightforward, fast, and broadly capable LLM performance.
Architecture: Hybrid vs. Dense
Nemotron 3 Nano
Nemotron 3 Nano is built on a hybrid architecture that combines three complementary technologies: Mamba-2, Transformer attention, and sparse Mixture-of-Experts. The Mamba layers allow the model to process extremely long sequences with remarkable efficiency, giving it the ability to maintain coherence across vast inputs such as long conversations, multi-document contexts, or large codebases. The Transformer layers complement this by providing the high-precision reasoning needed for tasks like planning, mathematical steps, and code analysis. On top of that, the sparse MoE design activates only a small subset of experts—typically between three and six—for each token. This means the model benefits from a large total parameter count of around 30 billion while only using roughly 3 billion parameters per token during inference, dramatically improving speed and cost efficiency.
Together, these components enable Nemotron 3 Nano to support context windows of up to one million tokens and to perform consistently across long and complex agentic workflows. It can remember and build on earlier information, reliably execute multi-step tasks, and scale efficiently in environments where many agents or tools operate simultaneously. In practice, Nemotron behaves like a much larger model, but without carrying the computational weight or infrastructure demands typically associated with models of that scale.
GPT-OSS-20B
GPT-OSS is built on a traditional dense Transformer architecture, meaning that all of the model’s parameters are used for every token it processes. This design gives GPT-OSS strong general-purpose language capabilities and makes it highly reliable across a wide range of everyday tasks—from conversation and summarization to straightforward coding and reasoning. Because the computation is uniform across tokens, the model offers predictable inference behavior and relatively simple memory and compute requirements, which makes deployment easy and efficient.
However, this dense structure also comes with limitations. Since the entire model is always active, it cannot selectively allocate computation the way sparse or hybrid architectures can. As a result, its ability to handle extremely long contexts or to specialize computation for different types of tasks is more restricted. In practice, GPT-OSS excels at broad, fast, general-purpose workloads, but it doesn’t scale as flexibly or efficiently as models designed with dynamic routing or hybrid sequence-processing components.
Reasoning, Coding, and Real-World Task Performance
Reasoning Quality
According to Artificial Analysis, both models score 52, placing them in the same tier of overall reasoning performance.
However, they reach that score differently:
- Nemotron 3 Nano excels in tool use, multi-step reasoning, and agent workflows.
- GPT-OSS-20B produces stable, broadly reliable answers across general tasks.
Nemotron is better suited for structured reasoning, while GPT-OSS is stronger for fast, general-purpose responses.
Coding Performance
Both models perform well in code generation, but with different strengths:
- Nemotron 3 Nano benefits from its hybrid architecture and RL training, making it strong in debugging, step-by-step code planning, and reasoning over long codebases due to its massive context window.
- GPT-OSS-20B excels in fast autocomplete-style coding, boilerplate generation, and shorter problem-solving tasks thanks to its dense architecture and high throughput.
Nemotron is the better choice when you need to analyze multiple files, work with large codebases, or rely on tool-driven coding workflows. GPT-OSS, on the other hand, shines in interactive IDE scenarios and rapid prototyping where speed and responsiveness matter most.
Agent Workflows
Nemotron 3 Nano was designed from the ground up with agentic behavior in mind, giving it a clear advantage in workflows that require planning, tool use, and multi-step reasoning. Through reinforcement learning in NVIDIA’s NeMo Gym, the model learns to operate across long action sequences rather than producing isolated one-off responses. This training allows Nemotron to maintain coherence over extended interactions, remember previous steps in an agent chain, and execute multi-stage tasks with greater reliability. Its architecture and long-context capability further reinforce this stability, making it particularly well-suited for complex agents that need to think, plan, and act over long horizons.
GPT-OSS, by contrast, was not built specifically for agentic tasks, but it performs surprisingly well for simpler agent patterns. Its lower latency makes it a strong fit for rapid-fire agent calls or situations where many short prompts are processed in quick succession. In shorter contexts, GPT-OSS offers very predictable behavior, which can be beneficial for lightweight or high-frequency agent loops. While it may not match Nemotron’s depth in long or structured reasoning chains, it remains a capable option for fast, straightforward agentic workflows.
Pricing on DeepInfra
From a pure pricing standpoint, GPT-OSS-20B is the more affordable option at $0.06 per million tokens, compared to $0.10 for Nemotron 3 Nano. For high-throughput applications or simple chat-style workloads where large amounts of text are processed quickly, this lower cost can be a meaningful advantage and makes GPT-OSS an attractive choice for budget-sensitive deployments.
However, cost per token only tells part of the story. Nemotron 3 Nano’s advanced reasoning abilities, massive 1M-token context window, and agent-optimized training allow it to handle tasks that GPT-OSS cannot manage as effectively. In workflows involving multi-step reasoning, large documents, or long conversation histories, Nemotron often needs fewer calls—and fewer tokens overall—to achieve better results. When context size, accuracy, or agent reliability matter, the slightly higher token cost can translate into greater efficiency and lower operational overhead in the long run.
Cost–Performance Tradeoffs
Choose GPT-OSS-20B if you want:
- Lowest-cost open-source inference
- Very fast initial response (TTFT)
- Strong general-purpose language capabilities
- High throughput for batch workloads
Choose Nemotron 3 Nano if you want:
- Extremely long context memory
- Better structured reasoning and agent performance
- Shorter total response times
- Advanced architecture (Mamba + Transformer + MoE)
- Fully open datasets and training recipes
- Multi-step planning reliability
Final Overview
| Category | Nemotron 3 Nano | GPT-OSS-20B (high) |
| Architecture | Hybrid Mamba-Transformer + Sparse MoE | Dense Transformer |
| Total Parameters | ~30B (3B active) | ~20B (all active) |
| Context Window | 1,000,000 tokens | 131,000 tokens |
| Training Approach | RL in NeMo Gym + Open datasets + Full recipes | Standard SFT + Open weights |
| Designed For | Agentic reasoning, long-context workflows, tool use | General-purpose chat & coding |
| Intelligence Index (AA) | 52 | 52 |
| Price (blended / 1M tokens) | $0.10 | $0.06 |
| First Token Latency | 0.23 s | 0.21 s |
| End-to-End Response Time | 14.9 s | 13.7 s |
| Strengths | Extreme long-context memory, multi-step reasoning, agent workflows, coding with depth | High throughput, low cost, fast TTFT, strong general-purpose performance |
| Ideal Use Cases | Agents, planning, RAG, code analysis, multi-document workflows | Chatbots, IDE assistants, fast inference, low-cost deployments |
Pricing 101: Token Math & Cost-Per-Completion Explained<p>LLM pricing can feel opaque until you translate it into a few simple numbers: input tokens, output tokens, and price per million. Every request you send—system prompt, chat history, RAG context, tool-call JSON—counts as input; everything the model writes back counts as output. Once you know those two counts, the cost of a completion is […]</p>
LLM API Provider Performance KPIs 101: TTFT, Throughput & End-to-End Goals<p>Fast, predictable responses turn a clever demo into a dependable product. If you’re building on an LLM API provider like DeepInfra, three performance ideas will carry you surprisingly far: time-to-first-token (TTFT), throughput, and an explicit end-to-end (E2E) goal that blends speed, reliability, and cost into something users actually feel. This beginner-friendly guide explains each KPI […]</p>
FLUX.1-dev Guide: Mastering Text-to-Image AI Prompts for Stunning and Consistent VisualsLearn how to craft compelling prompts for FLUX.1-dev to create stunning images.
© 2026 Deep Infra. All rights reserved.