Command R7B vs Sarvam 105B vs Seed 1.6 Flash
Seed 1.6 Flash comes out ahead, 78 to 65 and 62 on our weighted score, though Command R7B is 9% cheaper per token.
CohereCommand R7B
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.037 / $0.15
- Context128K
Sarvam AI
Sarvam 105B
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.047 / $0.186
- Context131K
- Our pick
ByteDance SeedSeed 1.6 Flash
78/100- ECI—
- Price$0.022 / $0.223
- Context256K
Seed 1.6 Flash is our pick
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Sarvam 105B (65) and Command R7B (62). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceCommand R7BCommand R7B $0.066 · Seed 1.6 Flash $0.072 · Sarvam 105B $0.082 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash 256,000 · Sarvam 105B 131,072 · Command R7B 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 1.6 FlashCommand R7B: Text · Sarvam 105B: Text · Seed 1.6 Flash: Text, Images
- Self-hostingCommand R7B and Sarvam 105BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Command R7B | Sarvam 105B | Seed 1.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 62/100 | 65/100 | 78/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Command R7BCohere | Sarvam 105BSarvam AI | Seed 1.6 FlashByteDance Seed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.037 | $0.047 | $0.022 (best) |
| Output | $0.15 (best) | $0.186 | $0.223 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.0044 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.066 (best) | $0.082 | $0.072 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Over 32K: $0.045 / $0.445 |
| Price source | Official Cohere API | Median of 2 providers | Official Volcengine Ark API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 4,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 32,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes · low · medium · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | command-r7b-12-2024 | sarvam-105b | doubao-seed-1-6-flash-250828 |
| API providers | 5 (best) | 3 | 2 |
| Released | Dec 2, 2024 | Sep 1, 2025 | Aug 28, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 1, 2024 | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Command R7B$0.675
- Sarvam 105B$0.842
- Seed 1.6 Flash$0.668
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Command R7B, Sarvam 105B or Seed 1.6 Flash?
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Sarvam 105B (65) and Command R7B (62). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Command R7B, Sarvam 105B or Seed 1.6 Flash?
Command R7B is cheaper at $0.037 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (official Cohere API price). Seed 1.6 Flash costs $0.022 input / $0.223 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price); Sarvam 105B costs $0.047 input / $0.186 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.066 per million tokens for Command R7B versus $0.072 for Seed 1.6 Flash (1.1× as much) and $0.082 for Sarvam 105B (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Command R7B has not been scored yet, Sarvam 105B has not been scored yet and Seed 1.6 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Command R7B, Sarvam 105B and Seed 1.6 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Seed 1.6 Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Sarvam 105B and 128,000 for Command R7B. Maximum output per response: Command R7B up to 4,000, Sarvam 105B up to 131,072, Seed 1.6 Flash up to 32,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Command R7B accepts text; Sarvam 105B accepts text; Seed 1.6 Flash accepts text and images. Seed 1.6 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Command R7B and Sarvam 105B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Seed 1.6 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Sarvam 105B is the newest, released Sep 1, 2025. Seed 1.6 Flash came out Aug 28, 2025; Command R7B came out Dec 2, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Command R7B Jun 1, 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
