Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Sarvam-M
Pixtral Large (25.02) comes out ahead, 40 to 6 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Mistral AIPixtral Large (25.02)
40/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context128K
Sarvam AI
Sarvam-M
6/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context33K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Pixtral Large (25.02) is our pick
Pixtral Large (25.02) is the better all-round choice, scoring 40/100 against Sarvam-M (6). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 pricePixtral Large (25.02)Pixtral Large (25.02) $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Sarvam-M unpriced
- Longest contextPixtral Large (25.02)Pixtral Large (25.02) 128,000 · Sarvam-M 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsPixtral Large (25.02)Pixtral Large (25.02): Text, Images · Sarvam-M: Text
- Self-hostingSarvam-MPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Pixtral Large (25.02) | Sarvam-M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 50 | 10 |
| Context window | 40% | 24 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 40/100 | 6/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Pixtral Large (25.02)Mistral AI | Sarvam-MSarvam AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $2.00 | — |
| Output | $6.00 | — |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 | — |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | — |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 3 | — |
| Released | Apr 8, 2025 | May 20, 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.
- Pixtral Large (25.02)$32.00
- Sarvam-M—
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Pixtral Large (25.02) or Sarvam-M?
Pixtral Large (25.02) is the better all-round choice, scoring 40/100 against Sarvam-M (6). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Pixtral Large (25.02) or Sarvam-M?
Pixtral Large (25.02) is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.00 per million tokens for Pixtral Large (25.02) versus . Sarvam-M has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Pixtral Large (25.02) has not been scored yet and Sarvam-M has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Pixtral Large (25.02) and Sarvam-M yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Sarvam-M does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Pixtral Large (25.02) has the largest context window at 128,000 tokens, against 32,768 for Sarvam-M. Maximum output per response: Pixtral Large (25.02) up to 8,192, Sarvam-M up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Pixtral Large (25.02) accepts text and images; Sarvam-M accepts text. Pixtral Large (25.02) handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Sarvam-M publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Pixtral Large (25.02) is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Sarvam-M is the newest, released May 20, 2025. Pixtral Large (25.02) came out Apr 8, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05Three-way comparison
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05Google
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs o4-mini-deep-researchOpenAI
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Jamba LargeAI21 Labs
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Command ACohere
- Sarvam-M vs Solar Pro 2Upstage
- Sarvam-M vs Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05Google
