Model Comparison
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
vs. 105B (high)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba, Sarvam
Recommended Pick
Sa105B (high)10 metric winsStrongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
105B (high)
100.0 value score
31.9 reasoning / $0.07/1M
Lowest Price
105B (high)
$0.04/1M input price
Best Reasoning
105B (high)
31.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
105B (high) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
105B (high) is 16.7x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
105B (high) generates about 1.4x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
105B (high) leads Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) by 0.1 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
105B (high) wins 10 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
105B (high)
Sarvam
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Sa 105B (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.70/1M | $0.04/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.80/1M | $0.17/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22/1M | $0.07/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Sarvam |
| Release Date | Apr 28, 2025 | Mar 6, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 99.1 tok/s | 142.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1079ms | 1168ms |
| Latency | 1079ms | 15224ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 6.0 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 31.9 | 31.9 |
| Intelligence | 8.6 | 11.9 |
| Math | 19.7 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 53.5% | 73.8% |
| MMLU Pro | 72.7% | — |
| HLE | 4.3% | 10.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 28.8% | — |
| MATH 500 | 86.9% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 19.7% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 30.3% | — |
| SciCode | 28.0% | 26.4% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 31.5% | 34.4% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 46.8% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 1.5% |
Key Takeaways
105B (high) offers the best value at $0.04/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
105B (high) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 31.9 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
105B (high)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
