GLM-4.5-Air vs Sarvam 105B vs Seed 1.6 Vision
Too close to call on our weighted score (Sarvam 105B 65, Seed 1.6 Vision 63, GLM-4.5-Air 49). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5-Air
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.10
- Context131K
Sarvam AI
Sarvam 105B
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.047 / $0.186
- Context131K
ByteDance SeedSeed 1.6 Vision
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.119 / $1.19
- Context256K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Sarvam 105B 65/100, Seed 1.6 Vision 63/100, GLM-4.5-Air 49/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Sarvam 105B on price and Seed 1.6 Vision for long inputs. 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 priceSarvam 105BSarvam 105B $0.082 · Seed 1.6 Vision $0.386 · GLM-4.5-Air $0.425 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSeed 1.6 VisionSeed 1.6 Vision 256,000 · GLM-4.5-Air 131,072 · Sarvam 105B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 1.6 VisionGLM-4.5-Air: Text · Sarvam 105B: Text · Seed 1.6 Vision: Text, Images
- Self-hostingGLM-4.5-Air and Sarvam 105BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.5-Air | Sarvam 105B | Seed 1.6 Vision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 68 | 100 | 69 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 49/100 | 65/100 | 63/100 |
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 | GLM-4.5-AirZ.ai (Zhipu) | Sarvam 105BSarvam AI | Seed 1.6 VisionByteDance Seed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.047 (best) | $0.119 |
| Output | $1.10 | $0.186 (best) | $1.19 |
| Cached input | $0.03 | — | $0.024 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.425 | $0.082 (best) | $0.386 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Over 32K: $0.178 / $2.37 |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Median of 2 providers | Official Volcengine Ark API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 98,304 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 | Yes | Yes · low · medium · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-4.5-air | sarvam-105b | doubao-seed-1-6-vision-250815 |
| API providers | 13 (best) | 3 | 2 |
| Released | Jul 28, 2025 | Sep 1, 2025 | Aug 15, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GLM-4.5-Air$4.20
- Sarvam 105B$0.842
- Seed 1.6 Vision$3.56
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.5-Air, Sarvam 105B or Seed 1.6 Vision?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Sarvam 105B 65/100, Seed 1.6 Vision 63/100, GLM-4.5-Air 49/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Sarvam 105B on price and Seed 1.6 Vision for long inputs. 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, GLM-4.5-Air, Sarvam 105B or Seed 1.6 Vision?
Sarvam 105B is cheaper at $0.047 input / $0.186 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). Seed 1.6 Vision costs $0.119 input / $1.19 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price); GLM-4.5-Air costs $0.20 input / $1.10 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.082 per million tokens for Sarvam 105B versus $0.386 for Seed 1.6 Vision (4.7× as much) and $0.425 for GLM-4.5-Air (5.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GLM-4.5-Air has not been scored yet, Sarvam 105B has not been scored yet and Seed 1.6 Vision has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.5-Air, Sarvam 105B and Seed 1.6 Vision 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 Vision has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for GLM-4.5-Air and 131,072 for Sarvam 105B. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.5-Air up to 98,304, Sarvam 105B up to 131,072, Seed 1.6 Vision up to 32,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.5-Air accepts text; Sarvam 105B accepts text; Seed 1.6 Vision accepts text and images. Seed 1.6 Vision handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-4.5-Air and Sarvam 105B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Seed 1.6 Vision is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Sarvam 105B is the newest, released Sep 1, 2025. Seed 1.6 Vision came out Aug 15, 2025; GLM-4.5-Air came out Jul 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.5-Air Apr 2025.
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.
