Sarvam 105B vs Trinity Nano Preview vs Seed 1.6 Flash
Seed 1.6 Flash comes out ahead, 56 to 31 and 25 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Sarvam AI
Sarvam 105B
31/100- ECI—
- Price$0.047 / $0.186
- Context131K
Arcee AITrinity Nano Preview
25/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context131K
- Our pick
ByteDance SeedSeed 1.6 Flash
56/100- 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 56/100 against Sarvam 105B (31) and Trinity Nano Preview (25). 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 priceSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash $0.072 · Sarvam 105B $0.082 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Trinity Nano Preview unpriced
- Longest contextSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash 256,000 · Sarvam 105B 131,072 · Trinity Nano Preview 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 1.6 FlashSarvam 105B: Text · Trinity Nano Preview: Text · Seed 1.6 Flash: Text, Images
- Self-hostingSarvam 105B and Trinity Nano PreviewPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
| Measure | Weight | Sarvam 105B | Trinity Nano Preview | Seed 1.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 25 | 70 |
| Context window | 40% | 24 | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 31/100 | 25/100 | 56/100 |
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 | Sarvam 105BSarvam AI | Trinity Nano PreviewArcee AI | Seed 1.6 FlashByteDance Seed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.047 | — | $0.022 (best) |
| Output | $0.186 (best) | — | $0.223 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.0044 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.082 | — | $0.072 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Over 32K: $0.045 / $0.445 |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | — | Official Volcengine Ark API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 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 · low · medium · high | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | sarvam-105b | — | doubao-seed-1-6-flash-250828 |
| API providers | 3 (best) | — | 2 |
| Released | Sep 1, 2025 | Dec 1, 2025 | Aug 28, 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.
- Sarvam 105B$0.842
- Trinity Nano Preview—
- Seed 1.6 Flash$0.668
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Sarvam 105B, Trinity Nano Preview or Seed 1.6 Flash?
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Sarvam 105B (31) and Trinity Nano Preview (25). 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, Sarvam 105B, Trinity Nano Preview 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). 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). Trinity Nano Preview has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Sarvam 105B has not been scored yet, Trinity Nano Preview 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 Sarvam 105B, Trinity Nano Preview 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?
Seed 1.6 Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Sarvam 105B and 131,072 for Trinity Nano Preview. Maximum output per response: Sarvam 105B up to 131,072, Trinity Nano Preview up to 131,072, Seed 1.6 Flash up to 32,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Sarvam 105B accepts text; Trinity Nano Preview 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 and Trinity Nano Preview publishes its weights (OpenMDW-1.1) and can be self-hosted; Seed 1.6 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Trinity Nano Preview is the newest, released Dec 1, 2025. 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.
