ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Sarvam 105B vs Seed 1.6 Flash vs Seed 2.0 Lite

Seed 1.6 Flash comes out ahead, 78 to 73 and 65 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Sarvam AI

    Sarvam 105B

    Released Sep 1, 2025

    65/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.047 / $0.186
    • Context131K
  2. Our pick

    ByteDance Seed

    Seed 1.6 Flash

    Released Aug 28, 2025

    78/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.022 / $0.223
    • Context256K
  3. ByteDance Seed

    Seed 2.0 Lite

    Released Feb 14, 2026

    73/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.089 / $0.534
    • Context256K
01 — Verdict

Seed 1.6 Flash is our pick

Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Seed 2.0 Lite (73) and Sarvam 105B (65). Seed 2.0 Lite wins on inputs & features. 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 · Seed 2.0 Lite $0.20 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextSeed 1.6 Flash and Seed 2.0 LiteSeed 1.6 Flash 256,000 · Seed 2.0 Lite 256,000 · Sarvam 105B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsSeed 2.0 LiteSarvam 105B: Text · Seed 1.6 Flash: Text, Images · Seed 2.0 Lite: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingSarvam 105BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightSarvam 105BSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 2.0 Lite
Price50%10010083
Inputs & features30%357080
Context window20%243636
Overall100%65/10078/10073/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Sarvam 105B vs Seed 1.6 Flash vs Seed 2.0 Lite specifications side by side
SpecificationSarvam 105BSarvam AISeed 1.6 FlashByteDance SeedSeed 2.0 LiteByteDance Seed
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input$0.047$0.022 (best)$0.089
Output$0.186 (best)$0.223$0.534
Cached input—$0.0044 (best)$0.018
Blended (3:1)$0.082$0.072 (best)$0.20
Long-context rateSame rateOver 32K: $0.045 / $0.445Over 32K: $0.134 / $0.802
Price sourceMedian of 2 providersOfficial Volcengine Ark APIOfficial Volcengine Ark API
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens256,000 tokens (best)256,000 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens (best)32,000 tokens32,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoYesYes
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoYes
ReasoningYes · low · medium · highYesYesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryProprietary
API model IDsarvam-105bdoubao-seed-1-6-flash-250828doubao-seed-2-0-lite-260428
API providers326 (best)
ReleasedSep 1, 2025Aug 28, 2025Feb 14, 2026
Knowledge cutoff———
03 — Cost

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$0.842
  • Seed 1.6 Flash$0.668
  • Seed 2.0 Lite$1.96
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Sarvam 105B, Seed 1.6 Flash or Seed 2.0 Lite?

Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Seed 2.0 Lite (73) and Sarvam 105B (65). Seed 2.0 Lite wins on inputs & features. 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, Seed 1.6 Flash or Seed 2.0 Lite?

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); Seed 2.0 Lite costs $0.089 input / $0.534 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark 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 $0.20 for Seed 2.0 Lite (2.8× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Sarvam 105B has not been scored yet, Seed 1.6 Flash has not been scored yet and Seed 2.0 Lite has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Sarvam 105B, Seed 1.6 Flash and Seed 2.0 Lite 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 and Seed 2.0 Lite have the largest context windows (256,000 and 256,000 tokens), against 131,072 for Sarvam 105B. Maximum output per response: Sarvam 105B up to 131,072, Seed 1.6 Flash up to 32,000, Seed 2.0 Lite up to 32,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Sarvam 105B accepts text; Seed 1.6 Flash accepts text and images; Seed 2.0 Lite accepts text, images and video. Seed 2.0 Lite handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Sarvam 105B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Seed 1.6 Flash and Seed 2.0 Lite is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Seed 2.0 Lite is the newest, released Feb 14, 2026. Sarvam 105B came out Sep 1, 2025; Seed 1.6 Flash came out Aug 28, 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 Oct 4, 2026.