Model Comparison
Qwen3 32B (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
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning)
58.5 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning)
15.3 coding index
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 (Reasoning).
Speed gap
105B (high) generates about 1.5x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 32B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning) leads 105B (high) by 26.5 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 (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 (Reasoning) | Top Pick Sa 105B (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.70/1M | $0.04/1M |
| Output Cost | $8.40/1M | $0.17/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.63/1M | $0.07/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Sarvam |
| Release Date | Apr 28, 2025 | Mar 6, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 96.9 tok/s | 142.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1066ms | 1168ms |
| Latency | 21714ms | 15224ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 5.2 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 58.5 | 31.9 |
| Intelligence | 11.5 | 11.9 |
| Coding | 15.3 | — |
| Math | 73.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 66.8% | 73.8% |
| MMLU Pro | 79.8% | — |
| HLE | 8.3% | 10.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 54.6% | — |
| MATH 500 | 96.1% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 73.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 80.7% | — |
| SciCode | 35.4% | 26.4% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 36.3% | 34.4% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 29.8% | 46.8% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 3.0% | 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.
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 58.5 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning) reaches a 15.3 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
105B (high)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
