Seed 1.6 Flash vs Apertus 8B vs Sarvam 105B
Seed 1.6 Flash comes out ahead, 78 to 65 and 56 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
ByteDance SeedSeed 1.6 Flash
78/100- ECI—
- Price$0.022 / $0.223
- Context256K
Swiss AI
Apertus 8B
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
Sarvam AI
Sarvam 105B
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.047 / $0.186
- Context131K
Seed 1.6 Flash is our pick
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Sarvam 105B (65) and Apertus 8B (56). It leads on 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 priceSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash $0.072 · Sarvam 105B $0.082 · Apertus 8B $0.125 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash 256,000 · Sarvam 105B 131,072 · Apertus 8B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash: Text, Images · Apertus 8B: Text · Sarvam 105B: Text
- Self-hostingApertus 8B and Sarvam 105BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Seed 1.6 Flash | Apertus 8B | Sarvam 105B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 93 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 12 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 78/100 | 56/100 | 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 | Seed 1.6 FlashByteDance Seed | Apertus 8BSwiss AI | Sarvam 105BSarvam AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.022 (best) | $0.10 | $0.047 |
| Output | $0.223 | $0.20 | $0.186 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.0044 | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.072 (best) | $0.125 | $0.082 |
| Long-context rate | Over 32K: $0.045 / $0.445 | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Volcengine Ark API | Median of 1 providers | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 32,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | Yes · low · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 | Open |
| API model ID | doubao-seed-1-6-flash-250828 | — | sarvam-105b |
| API providers | 2 | 1 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Aug 28, 2025 | Sep 2, 2025 | Sep 1, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Sep 2025 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Seed 1.6 Flash$0.668
- Apertus 8B$1.40
- Sarvam 105B$0.842
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Seed 1.6 Flash, Apertus 8B or Sarvam 105B?
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Sarvam 105B (65) and Apertus 8B (56). It leads on 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, Seed 1.6 Flash, Apertus 8B or Sarvam 105B?
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); Apertus 8B costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). 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 $0.125 for Apertus 8B (1.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Seed 1.6 Flash has not been scored yet, Apertus 8B has not been scored yet and Sarvam 105B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Seed 1.6 Flash, Apertus 8B and Sarvam 105B 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 65,536 for Apertus 8B. Maximum output per response: Seed 1.6 Flash up to 32,000, Apertus 8B up to 8,192, Sarvam 105B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Seed 1.6 Flash accepts text and images; Apertus 8B accepts text; Sarvam 105B accepts text. Seed 1.6 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 8B and Sarvam 105B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Seed 1.6 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Apertus 8B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. Sarvam 105B came out Sep 1, 2025; Seed 1.6 Flash came out Aug 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 8B Sep 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.
