Ministral 3 3B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Sarvam 105B
Ministral 3 3B comes out ahead, 74 to 68 and 65 on our weighted score, though Sarvam 105B is 18% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
Mistral AIMinistral 3 3B
74/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.10
- Context262K
NVIDIANemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
68/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.20
- Context262K
Sarvam AI
Sarvam 105B
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.047 / $0.186
- Context131K
Ministral 3 3B is our pick
Ministral 3 3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 74/100 against Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (68) and Sarvam 105B (65). It leads on inputs & features. 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 · Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B $0.087 · Ministral 3 3B $0.10 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMinistral 3 3B and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BMinistral 3 3B 262,144 · Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B 262,144 · Sarvam 105B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsMinistral 3 3BMinistral 3 3B: Text, Images · Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B: Text · Sarvam 105B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Ministral 3 3B | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B | Sarvam 105B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 97 | 100 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 60 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 74/100 | 68/100 | 65/100 |
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 | Ministral 3 3BMistral AI | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BNVIDIA | Sarvam 105BSarvam AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.05 | $0.047 (best) |
| Output | $0.10 (best) | $0.20 | $0.186 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.10 | $0.087 | $0.082 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 13 providers | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes · low · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenApache 2.0 | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | nvidia/nemotron-3-nano-30b-a3b | sarvam-105b |
| API providers | 1 | 16 (best) | 3 |
| Released | Dec 2, 2025 | Dec 15, 2025 | Sep 1, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Ministral 3 3B$1.20
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B$0.90
- Sarvam 105B$0.842
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ministral 3 3B, Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B or Sarvam 105B?
Ministral 3 3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 74/100 against Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (68) and Sarvam 105B (65). It leads on inputs & features. 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, Ministral 3 3B, Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B or Sarvam 105B?
Sarvam 105B is cheaper at $0.047 input / $0.186 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B costs $0.05 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 13 API providers; free on Nvidia); Ministral 3 3B costs $0.10 input / $0.10 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.082 per million tokens for Sarvam 105B versus $0.087 for Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (1.1× as much) and $0.10 for Ministral 3 3B (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ministral 3 3B has not been scored yet, Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B has not been scored yet and Sarvam 105B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ministral 3 3B, Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B and Sarvam 105B 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?
Ministral 3 3B and Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B have the largest context windows (262,144 and 262,144 tokens), against 131,072 for Sarvam 105B. Maximum output per response: Ministral 3 3B up to 262,144, Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B up to 262,144, Sarvam 105B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ministral 3 3B accepts text and images; Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B accepts text; Sarvam 105B accepts text. Ministral 3 3B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache 2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B is the newest, released Dec 15, 2025. Ministral 3 3B came out Dec 2, 2025; Sarvam 105B came out Sep 1, 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.
