Skip to content

Same-model provider benchmark

MARA vs SambaNova: LLM provider comparison

Compare MARA and SambaNova on 3 exact shared text models. ProviderBench keeps speed, price, and catalog coverage separate so naturally faster model catalogs cannot distort the result.

MARA

4 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
United States
Model types
4 text

SambaNova

6 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
N/a
Model types
6 text

At a glance

Metric winners

There is no overall score. Each winner answers one specific question using only directly comparable data.

Fastest on shared models

1.24× typical advantage

3 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

$0.5989 / 1M

3 exact models using a 1K-input/500-output mix

Most models available

6 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricMARASambaNova
Typical 500-token response9.15 s10.16 s
Typical response start1.67 s2.10 s
Typical output speed109.0 tok/s62.0 tok/s
Blended token price$0.5989 / 1M$0.8478 / 1M
Typical route uptime76.79%92.37%

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

MARASambaNova
500-token response by shared model

Estimated seconds using recent median response-start and output-speed data. Lower is better.

SambaNova has the lower typical same-model response ratio across 3 measured models.

Blended token price by shared model

USD per 1 million tokens using a 1,000-input/500-output mix. Lower is better.

MARA has the lower typical price ratio across 3 priced shared models.

Shared text models

3 exact models · newest first

ModelMARASambaNova
MiniMax M2.7Winner · MARA

minimax/minimax-m2.7

MARA
Blended price
$0.48 / 1M
500-token response
3.88 s
Response starts
1.18 s
Output speed
185.0 tok/s
Route uptime
99.84%
Context
196.6K
Route
mara
SambaNova
Blended price
$1.2 / 1M
500-token response
10.16 s
Response starts
2.10 s
Output speed
62.0 tok/s
Route uptime
91.21%
Context
196.6K
Route
sambanova
DeepSeek V3.1Winner · SambaNova

deepseek/deepseek-chat-v3.1

MARA
Blended price
$0.9667 / 1M
500-token response
17.30 s
Response starts
1.67 s
Output speed
32.0 tok/s
Route uptime
58.22%
Context
131.1K
Route
mara
SambaNova
Blended price
$0.9333 / 1M
500-token response
12.05 s
Response starts
1.18 s
Output speed
46.0 tok/s
Route uptime
92.37%
Context
131.1K
Route
sambanova/fp8
gpt-oss-120bWinner · SambaNova

openai/gpt-oss-120b

MARA
Blended price
$0.35 / 1M
500-token response
9.15 s
Response starts
4.57 s
Output speed
109.0 tok/s
Route uptime
76.79%
Context
131.1K
Route
mara
SambaNova
Blended price
$0.41 / 1M
500-token response
7.41 s
Response starts
2.60 s
Output speed
104.0 tok/s
Route uptime
96.92%
Context
131.1K
Route
sambanova

A per-model winner combines blended price and estimated 500-token response time with equal proportional weight. Ties and rows missing either measurement receive no badge. Comparison data calculated . Values use one deterministic route per provider and model; missing measurements remain visible as N/a.

MARA vs SambaNova analysis

How MARA and SambaNova compare for AI inference

MARA and SambaNova share 3 indexed text models, including MiniMax M2.7, DeepSeek V3.1, gpt-oss-120b. SambaNova has the stronger typical response-time result on the directly measured set.

Same-model speed evidence

3 shared models currently have complete response-start and output-speed measurements on both providers. The speed comparison uses per-model ratios before taking the median, so naturally faster model catalogs do not improve the result.

Token pricing on one workload

3 shared models have complete input and output prices on both providers. Prices use the same 1,000-input/500-output-token mix and are normalized to one million tokens for readability.

Catalog and deployment differences

MARA has 4 indexed models and lists 1 published server region; SambaNova has 6 models and lists no regions. Verify data residency, privacy terms, limits, and production latency directly before choosing.