Noometry

Model comparison

Seed 2.0 Pro vs GLM-4.6

Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Seed 2.0 Pro ByteDance Seed

42.5

Rank #97 Confirmed

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

40.9

Rank #132 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and GLM-4.6 in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Seed 2.0 Pro leads 42.9 to 39.9.
  • GLM-4.6 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Seed 2.0 Pro.
  • Seed 2.0 Pro accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Seed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
ProviderByteDance SeedZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index42.540.9
Released2026-02-142025-09-30
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window256K205K
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.50$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$3$2.20
Results tracked2029

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Seed 2.0 Pro leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 42.9 (#84), GLM-4.6: 39.9 (#137)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
LMArena Coding14721449
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—55.4%
LMArena WebDev—1339
SciCode—38.4%
ALE-Bench—340.82

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Seed 2.0 Pro: —, GLM-4.6: 32.1 (#60)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
Terminal-Bench—24.5%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—72.4%

Reasoning Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 23.1 (#167), GLM-4.6: 23.1 (#168)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
LMArena Hard Prompts14531440
Kagi LLM Benchmark—47.4%
NYT Connections (extended)28.4%—
CritPt—1.1%
Thematic Generalization57.1%—

Math Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#110), GLM-4.6: 36.4 (#115)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
LMArena Math14401431
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—3.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.6 (#119), GLM-4.6: 39.6 (#118)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
LMArena Expert14401432
Vectara Hallucination Rate—9.5%

Multimodal Not comparable

Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.8 (#34), GLM-4.6: —

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
LMArena Vision1275—

Multilingual Seed 2.0 Pro leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.8 (#37), GLM-4.6: 53.6 (#62)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
LMArena Non-English14421426
LMArena Chinese14901500
LMArena French14701459
LMArena German14431447
LMArena Japanese14081394
LMArena Korean14121401
LMArena Russian14501418
LMArena Spanish14601436

Instruction Following Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.7 (#86), GLM-4.6: 74.5 (#93)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
LMArena Instruction Following14141410

Long Context Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#85), GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#91)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
LMArena Longer Query14281423

Writing & Preference Seed 2.0 Pro leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 63.0 (#66), GLM-4.6: 61.3 (#86)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProGLM-4.6
LMArena Text14481440
LMArena Creative Writing14061411
LMArena Multi-Turn14411427
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1411

Frequently asked questions

Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than GLM-4.6?

Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Seed 2.0 Pro or GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Seed 2.0 Pro lists at $0.50 and $3.

Is Seed 2.0 Pro or GLM-4.6 better for coding?

Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.9 versus 39.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Seed 2.0 Pro does, with 256K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do Seed 2.0 Pro and GLM-4.6 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6 has 29.

Related comparisons

Go deeper