Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Llama 3.1 405B
53
2/8 categoriesSarvam 105B
60
Winner · 3/8 categoriesLlama 3.1 405B· Sarvam 105B
Pick Sarvam 105B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Llama 3.1 405B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Sarvam 105B is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 60 to 53. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Sarvam 105B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 81.7 against 54.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMLU, 70% to 90.6%. Llama 3.1 405B does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Sarvam 105B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Llama 3.1 405B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1 405B | Sarvam 105B |
|---|---|---|
| AgenticLlama 3.1 405B wins | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 53% | — |
| BrowseComp | — | 49.5% |
| CodingSarvam 105B wins | ||
| HumanEval | 62% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified | 46% | 45% |
| LiveCodeBench | 37% | — |
| SWE-bench Pro | 43% | — |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | — | 71.7% |
| Multimodal & Grounded | ||
| OfficeQA Pro | 65% | — |
| Reasoning | ||
| BBH | 82% | — |
| LongBench v2 | 68% | — |
| MRCRv2 | 65% | — |
| gpqaDiamond | — | 78.7% |
| hle | — | 11.2% |
| KnowledgeSarvam 105B wins | ||
| MMLU | 70% | 90.6% |
| GPQA | 70% | — |
| SuperGPQA | 68% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 71% | 81.7% |
| HLE | 7% | — |
| FrontierScience | 65% | — |
| SimpleQA | 68% | — |
| Instruction FollowingLlama 3.1 405B wins | ||
| IFEval | 86% | 84.8% |
| Multilingual | ||
| MMLU-ProX | 78% | — |
| MathematicsSarvam 105B wins | ||
| AIME 2023 | 70% | — |
| AIME 2024 | 72% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2024 | 68% | — |
| MATH-500 | 82% | 98.6% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 88.3% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 85.8% |
| HMMT Nov 2025 | — | 85.8% |
Sarvam 105B is ahead overall, 60 to 53. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU, where the scores are 70% and 90.6%.
Sarvam 105B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.7 versus 54.3. Inside this category, MMLU is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Sarvam 105B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 45 versus 41.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Sarvam 105B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.3 versus 82. Inside this category, MATH-500 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Llama 3.1 405B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 53 versus 49.5. Sarvam 105B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Llama 3.1 405B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 86 versus 84.8. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.