Qwen Flash vs Sarvam 105B vs Seed 1.6 Flash
Seed 1.6 Flash comes out ahead, 78 to 68 and 65 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Flash
68/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.40
- Context1M
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 Qwen Flash (68) and Sarvam 105B (65). It leads on inputs & features. Qwen Flash wins on 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 · Sarvam 105B $0.082 · Qwen Flash $0.138 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen FlashQwen Flash 1,000,000 · Seed 1.6 Flash 256,000 · Sarvam 105B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 1.6 FlashQwen Flash: Text · Sarvam 105B: Text · Seed 1.6 Flash: Text, Images
- Self-hostingSarvam 105BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen Flash | Sarvam 105B | Seed 1.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 91 | 100 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 68/100 | 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 | Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen) | Sarvam 105BSarvam AI | Seed 1.6 FlashByteDance Seed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.05 | $0.047 | $0.022 (best) |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.186 (best) | $0.223 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.0044 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.138 | $0.082 | $0.072 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Over 32K: $0.045 / $0.445 |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 2 providers | Official Volcengine Ark API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 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 | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | qwen-flash | sarvam-105b | doubao-seed-1-6-flash-250828 |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 3 | 2 |
| Released | Jul 28, 2025 | Sep 1, 2025 | Aug 28, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen Flash$1.30
- Sarvam 105B$0.842
- Seed 1.6 Flash$0.668
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen Flash, Sarvam 105B or Seed 1.6 Flash?
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Qwen Flash (68) and Sarvam 105B (65). It leads on inputs & features. Qwen Flash wins on 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, Qwen Flash, Sarvam 105B or Seed 1.6 Flash?
Seed 1.6 Flash is cheaper at $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); Qwen Flash costs $0.05 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). 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 $0.082 for Sarvam 105B (1.1× as much) and $0.138 for Qwen Flash (1.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Qwen Flash 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 Qwen Flash, 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?
Qwen Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 256,000 for Seed 1.6 Flash and 131,072 for Sarvam 105B. Maximum output per response: Qwen Flash up to 32,768, Sarvam 105B up to 131,072, Seed 1.6 Flash up to 32,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen Flash 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?
Sarvam 105B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen Flash and 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; Qwen Flash came out Jul 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen Flash Apr 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.
