Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Seed 2.0 Pro
DeepSeek V4 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.3 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
ByteDance SeedSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Seed 2.0 Pro in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where DeepSeek V4 Pro leads 56.5 to 24.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 91.3% for DeepSeek V4 Pro and 28.4% for Seed 2.0 Pro.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper at $0.66 / $1.98 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Seed 2.0 Pro.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | ByteDance Seed |
| Noometry Index | 54.3 | 43.2 |
| Released | 2026-04-24 | 2026-02-14 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 256K |
| Max output | 393K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.66 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.98 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 52.4 (#34), Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.5 (#86)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1470 | 1472 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 77.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 28.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1582 | — |
| SciCode | 51% | — |
| WeirdML | 66.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,403 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 32.8 (#58), Seed 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 47.3% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,285 | — |
Reasoning DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 56.5 (#24), Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.3% | 28.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1461 | 1453 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 61.3% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 53.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 90.5% | — |
| CritPt | 18% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 57.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 43% | — |
| DTBench | 93.9% | — |
| LMCA | 45.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 40% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.31 | — |
| ForecastBench | 56.1 | — |
Math DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 64.8 (#30), Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1439 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 64.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
Knowledge DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 59.5 (#31), Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1464 | 1440 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 52.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 8.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: —, Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1274 |
Multilingual Too close to call
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 54.4 (#45), Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1441 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1486 | 1489 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | 1471 |
| LMArena German | 1458 | 1442 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1445 | 1408 |
| LMArena Korean | 1447 | 1411 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1449 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1458 | 1460 |
Instruction Following DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 76.1 (#47), Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1448 | 1414 |
Long Context DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 45.0 (#51), Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1458 | 1428 |
| CL-bench Life | 13.5% | — |
Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 65.5 (#46), Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1448 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1446 | 1406 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1467 | 1441 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1553 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1166 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than Seed 2.0 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.3 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro or Seed 2.0 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1.98 per million output tokens; Seed 2.0 Pro lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro or Seed 2.0 Pro better for coding?
DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.4 versus 43.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4 Pro does, with 1M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4 Pro and Seed 2.0 Pro share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4 Pro has 48 scored results on Noometry and Seed 2.0 Pro has 20.