Model Comparison
105B (High)
vs. Step 3.5 Flash 2603
Comparing 2 AI models · 0 benchmarks · Sarvam, StepFun
Recommended Pick
Sa105B (High)6 metric winsStrongest on: Input price, Output price, Blended price
Lowest Price
105B (High)
$0.04/1M input price
Differences That Matter
Price gap
105B (High) is 2.4x cheaper on input tokens than Step 3.5 Flash 2603.
Top-pick rationale
105B (High) wins 6 measurable categories, including Input price, Output price, Blended price, Throughput.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
105B (High)
Sarvam
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
StepFun
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Secure AI Chat made in Europe
Chat with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi: open-weight, transparent, no lock-in.
EU-hosted open models, one API
Servers in Germany & Finland. Operated by a German company under the GDPR, DPA available, ISO 27001-certified data centres.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Sa 105B (High) | St Step 3.5 Flash 2603 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.04/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.17/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.07/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Sarvam | StepFun |
| Release Date | Mar 6, 2026 | Apr 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 160.2 tok/s | 158.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1640ms | 3450ms |
| Latency | 14130ms | 16100ms |
Key Takeaways
105B (High) offers the best value at $0.04/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
105B (High)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives
