Sarvam 105B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 83 to 52 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Sarvam AI
Sarvam 105B
52/100- ECI—
- Price$0.158 / $0.632
- Context131K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
83/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Sarvam 105B (52). 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 priceGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 · Sarvam 105B $0.276 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Sarvam 105B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteSarvam 105B: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingSarvam 105BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Sarvam 105B | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 73 | 82 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 52/100 | 83/100 |
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 | Sarvam 105BSarvam AI | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.158 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $0.632 | $0.40 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.053 | $0.01 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.276 | $0.175 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Sarvam AI API | Official Google API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | sarvam-105b | gemini-2.5-flash-lite |
| API providers | 3 | 24 (best) |
| Released | Feb 18, 2026 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Sarvam 105B$2.84
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Sarvam 105B or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Sarvam 105B (52). 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, Sarvam 105B or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price). Sarvam 105B costs $0.158 input / $0.632 output per million tokens (official Sarvam AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.175 per million tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite versus $0.276 for Sarvam 105B (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Sarvam 105B has not been scored yet and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Sarvam 105B and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for Sarvam 105B. Maximum output per response: Sarvam 105B up to 131,072, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Sarvam 105B accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Sarvam 105B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Sarvam 105B is the newest, released Feb 18, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 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 Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12BThree-way comparison
- Sarvam 105B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA
- Sarvam 105B vs Mistral Small 4Mistral AI
- Sarvam 105B vs Solar Pro 3Upstage
- Sarvam 105B vs Grok 4 Fast Non ReasoningxAI
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Voxtral Small 24B 2507Mistral AI
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen)
