Sarvam 30B vs Seed 2.0 Code vs Granite-4.0-H-Micro
Too close to call on our weighted score (Granite-4.0-H-Micro 65, Sarvam 30B 65, Seed 2.0 Code 57). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Sarvam AI
Sarvam 30B
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.02 / $0.10
- Context128K
ByteDance SeedSeed 2.0 Code
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.475 / $2.37
- Context262K
IBMGranite-4.0-H-Micro
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.017 / $0.112
- Context131K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Granite-4.0-H-Micro 65/100, Sarvam 30B 65/100, Seed 2.0 Code 57/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Sarvam 30B on price and Seed 2.0 Code 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 30BSarvam 30B $0.04 · Granite-4.0-H-Micro $0.041 · Seed 2.0 Code $0.95 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSeed 2.0 CodeSeed 2.0 Code 262,144 · Granite-4.0-H-Micro 131,072 · Sarvam 30B 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 2.0 CodeSarvam 30B: Text · Seed 2.0 Code: Text, Images, Video · Granite-4.0-H-Micro: Text
- Self-hostingSarvam 30B and Granite-4.0-H-MicroPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Sarvam 30B | Seed 2.0 Code | Granite-4.0-H-Micro |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 51 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 80 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 37 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 57/100 | 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 | Sarvam 30BSarvam AI | Seed 2.0 CodeByteDance Seed | Granite-4.0-H-MicroIBM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.02 | $0.475 | $0.017 (best) |
| Output | $0.10 (best) | $2.37 | $0.112 |
| Cached input | — | $0.095 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.04 (best) | $0.95 | $0.041 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 32K: $0.712 / $3.56 | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Volcengine Ark API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes · low · medium · high | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | sarvam-30b | doubao-seed-2-0-code-preview-260215 | — |
| API providers | 2 | 10 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Feb 18, 2026 | Feb 14, 2026 | Oct 2, 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 30B$0.40
- Seed 2.0 Code$9.50
- Granite-4.0-H-Micro$0.394
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Sarvam 30B, Seed 2.0 Code or Granite-4.0-H-Micro?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Granite-4.0-H-Micro 65/100, Sarvam 30B 65/100, Seed 2.0 Code 57/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Sarvam 30B on price and Seed 2.0 Code 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, Sarvam 30B, Seed 2.0 Code or Granite-4.0-H-Micro?
Sarvam 30B is cheaper at $0.02 input / $0.10 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Granite-4.0-H-Micro costs $0.017 input / $0.112 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Seed 2.0 Code costs $0.475 input / $2.37 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.04 per million tokens for Sarvam 30B versus $0.041 for Granite-4.0-H-Micro (1× as much) and $0.95 for Seed 2.0 Code (24× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Sarvam 30B has not been scored yet, Seed 2.0 Code has not been scored yet and Granite-4.0-H-Micro has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Sarvam 30B, Seed 2.0 Code and Granite-4.0-H-Micro 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 2.0 Code has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for Granite-4.0-H-Micro and 128,000 for Sarvam 30B. Maximum output per response: Sarvam 30B up to 128,000, Seed 2.0 Code up to 131,072, Granite-4.0-H-Micro up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Sarvam 30B accepts text; Seed 2.0 Code accepts text, images and video; Granite-4.0-H-Micro accepts text. Seed 2.0 Code handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Sarvam 30B and Granite-4.0-H-Micro publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Seed 2.0 Code is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Sarvam 30B is the newest, released Feb 18, 2026. Seed 2.0 Code came out Feb 14, 2026; Granite-4.0-H-Micro came out Oct 2, 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.
