Seed 1.6 vs Sarvam 105B vs Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT
Sarvam 105B comes out ahead, 65 to 55 and 39 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
ByteDance SeedSeed 1.6
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.119 / $1.19
- Context256K
- Our pick
Sarvam AI
Sarvam 105B
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.047 / $0.186
- Context131K
AI Singapore
Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT
39/100- ECI—
- Price$0.351 / $0.555
- Context128K
Sarvam 105B is our pick
Sarvam 105B is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Seed 1.6 (55) and Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT (39). It leads on price. Seed 1.6 wins 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 priceSarvam 105BSarvam 105B $0.082 · Seed 1.6 $0.386 · Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT $0.402 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSeed 1.6Seed 1.6 256,000 · Sarvam 105B 131,072 · Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsSeed 1.6: Text · Sarvam 105B: Text · Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT: Text
- Self-hostingSarvam 105B and Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-ITPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Seed 1.6 | Sarvam 105B | Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 100 | 69 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 35 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 65/100 | 39/100 |
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 1.6ByteDance Seed | Sarvam 105BSarvam AI | Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-ITAI Singapore |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.119 | $0.047 (best) | $0.351 |
| Output | $1.19 | $0.186 (best) | $0.555 |
| Cached input | $0.024 | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.386 | $0.082 (best) | $0.402 |
| Long-context rate | Over 32K: $0.178 / $2.37 | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Volcengine Ark API | Median of 2 providers | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 64,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yesminimal · low · medium · high | Yes · low · medium · high | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | No |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Open |
| API model ID | doubao-seed-1-6-251015 | sarvam-105b | — |
| API providers | 2 | 3 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Oct 15, 2025 | Sep 1, 2025 | Sep 23, 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.
- Seed 1.6$3.56
- Sarvam 105B$0.842
- Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT$4.62
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Seed 1.6, Sarvam 105B or Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT?
Sarvam 105B is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Seed 1.6 (55) and Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT (39). It leads on price. Seed 1.6 wins 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, Sarvam 105B or Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT?
Sarvam 105B is cheaper at $0.047 input / $0.186 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). Seed 1.6 costs $0.119 input / $1.19 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price); Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT costs $0.351 input / $0.555 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.082 per million tokens for Sarvam 105B versus $0.386 for Seed 1.6 (4.7× as much) and $0.402 for Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT (4.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Seed 1.6 has not been scored yet, Sarvam 105B has not been scored yet and Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Seed 1.6, Sarvam 105B and Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Seed 1.6 has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Sarvam 105B and 128,000 for Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT. Maximum output per response: Seed 1.6 up to 64,000, Sarvam 105B up to 131,072, Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT up to 128,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Seed 1.6 accepts text; Sarvam 105B accepts text; Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Sarvam 105B and Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Seed 1.6 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Seed 1.6 is the newest, released Oct 15, 2025. Gemma-SEA-LION-v4-27B-IT came out Sep 23, 2025; Sarvam 105B came out Sep 1, 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.
