Qwen Flash vs Sarvam 105B
Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen Flash 68, Sarvam 105B 65). The right pick depends on what you value most.
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
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen Flash 68/100, Sarvam 105B 65/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Sarvam 105B on price and Qwen Flash 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 · Qwen Flash $0.138 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen FlashQwen Flash 1,000,000 · Sarvam 105B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen Flash: Text · Sarvam 105B: Text
- Self-hostingSarvam 105BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen Flash | Sarvam 105B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 91 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 24 |
| Overall | 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 | Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen) | Sarvam 105BSarvam AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.05 | $0.047 (best) |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.186 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.138 | $0.082 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes · low · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | qwen-flash | sarvam-105b |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 3 |
| Released | Jul 28, 2025 | Sep 1, 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
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen Flash or Sarvam 105B?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen Flash 68/100, Sarvam 105B 65/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Sarvam 105B on price and Qwen Flash 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, Qwen Flash or Sarvam 105B?
Sarvam 105B is cheaper at $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 $0.082 per million tokens for Sarvam 105B versus $0.138 for Qwen Flash (1.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen Flash 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 Qwen Flash and Sarvam 105B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both 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 131,072 for Sarvam 105B. Maximum output per response: Qwen Flash up to 32,768, Sarvam 105B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen Flash accepts text; Sarvam 105B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Sarvam 105B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Sarvam 105B is the newest, released Sep 1, 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.
