Sarvam-M vs Palmyra X5
Palmyra X5 comes out ahead, 60 to 6 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Sarvam AI
Sarvam-M
6/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context33K
- Our pick
Writer
Palmyra X5
60/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $6.00
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Palmyra X5 is our pick
Palmyra X5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against Sarvam-M (6). 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 pricePalmyra X5Palmyra X5 $1.95 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Sarvam-M unpriced
- Longest contextPalmyra X5Palmyra X5 1,000,000 · Sarvam-M 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsPalmyra X5Sarvam-M: Text · Palmyra X5: Text, Images
- Self-hostingSarvam-MPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Sarvam-M | Palmyra X5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 10 | 60 |
| Context window | 40% | 0 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 6/100 | 60/100 |
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-MSarvam AI | Palmyra X5Writer |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | — | $0.60 |
| Output | — | $6.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $1.95 |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Median of 4 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 32,768 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | — | 4 |
| Released | May 20, 2025 | Apr 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-M—
- Palmyra X5$18.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Sarvam-M or Palmyra X5?
Palmyra X5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against Sarvam-M (6). 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-M or Palmyra X5?
Palmyra X5 is cheaper at $0.60 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.95 per million tokens for Palmyra X5 versus . Sarvam-M has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Sarvam-M has not been scored yet and Palmyra X5 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Sarvam-M and Palmyra X5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Sarvam-M does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Palmyra X5 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 32,768 for Sarvam-M. Maximum output per response: Sarvam-M up to 32,768, Palmyra X5 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Sarvam-M accepts text; Palmyra X5 accepts text and images. Palmyra X5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Sarvam-M publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Palmyra X5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Sarvam-M is the newest, released May 20, 2025. Palmyra X5 came out Apr 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 Nov 2, 2026.
