Nemotron Nano 9B v2 vs Seed 1.6 Flash vs Apertus 8B
Seed 1.6 Flash comes out ahead, 81 to 62 and 54 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
NVIDIANemotron Nano 9B v2
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.23
- Context131K
- Our pick
ByteDance SeedSeed 1.6 Flash
81/100- ECI—
- Price$0.022 / $0.223
- Context256K
Swiss AI
Apertus 8B
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
Seed 1.6 Flash is our pick
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 81/100 against Nemotron Nano 9B v2 (62) and Apertus 8B (54). It leads on price, 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 priceSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash $0.072 · Nemotron Nano 9B v2 $0.102 · Apertus 8B $0.125 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash 256,000 · Nemotron Nano 9B v2 131,072 · Apertus 8B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 1.6 FlashNemotron Nano 9B v2: Text · Seed 1.6 Flash: Text, Images, Video · Apertus 8B: Text
- Self-hostingNemotron Nano 9B v2 and Apertus 8BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Nemotron Nano 9B v2 | Seed 1.6 Flash | Apertus 8B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 93 | 100 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 80 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 36 | 12 |
| Overall | 100% | 62/100 | 81/100 | 54/100 |
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 | Nemotron Nano 9B v2NVIDIA | Seed 1.6 FlashByteDance Seed | Apertus 8BSwiss AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.06 | $0.022 (best) | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.23 | $0.223 | $0.20 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.0044 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.102 | $0.072 (best) | $0.125 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 32K: $0.045 / $0.445 | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Official Volcengine Ark API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 32,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | doubao-seed-1-6-flash-250828 | — |
| API providers | 3 | 5 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Aug 18, 2025 | Aug 28, 2025 | Sep 2, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2024 | — | Sep 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Nemotron Nano 9B v2$1.06
- Seed 1.6 Flash$0.668
- Apertus 8B$1.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Nemotron Nano 9B v2, Seed 1.6 Flash or Apertus 8B?
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 81/100 against Nemotron Nano 9B v2 (62) and Apertus 8B (54). It leads on price, 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, Nemotron Nano 9B v2, Seed 1.6 Flash or Apertus 8B?
Seed 1.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.022 input / $0.223 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price). Nemotron Nano 9B v2 costs $0.06 input / $0.23 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers); Apertus 8B costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.072 per million tokens for Seed 1.6 Flash versus $0.102 for Nemotron Nano 9B v2 (1.4× as much) and $0.125 for Apertus 8B (1.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Nemotron Nano 9B v2 has not been scored yet, Seed 1.6 Flash has not been scored yet and Apertus 8B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Nemotron Nano 9B v2, Seed 1.6 Flash and Apertus 8B 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 Nemotron Nano 9B v2 and 65,536 for Apertus 8B. Maximum output per response: Nemotron Nano 9B v2 up to 131,072, Seed 1.6 Flash up to 32,000, Apertus 8B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 accepts text; Seed 1.6 Flash accepts text, images and video; Apertus 8B accepts text. Seed 1.6 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 and Apertus 8B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Seed 1.6 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Apertus 8B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. Seed 1.6 Flash came out Aug 28, 2025; Nemotron Nano 9B v2 came out Aug 18, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Nemotron Nano 9B v2 Sep 2024, Apertus 8B Sep 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 Nov 2, 2026.
