Model comparison
Seed 2.0 Pro vs GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Seed 2.0 Pro costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
ByteDance SeedSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.1 in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 55.0 to 39.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 28.4% for Seed 2.0 Pro and 77.7% for GLM-5.1.
- Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- Seed 2.0 Pro accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ByteDance Seed | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 42.5 | 47.6 |
| Released | 2026-02-14 | 2026-04-07 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 256K | 200K |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 20 | 41 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 42.9 (#84), GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1472 | 1486 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1509 |
| SciCode | — | 43.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 57.1% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 887.1 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Seed 2.0 Pro: —, GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,634 |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 23.1 (#167), GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 28.4% | 77.7% |
| Thematic Generalization | 57.1% | 69.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1453 | 1472 |
| SimpleBench | — | 55.1% |
| CritPt | — | 4.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.86 |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#110), GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1440 | 1472 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 36.8% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 22.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.6 (#119), GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1477 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 89.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.8 (#34), GLM-5.1: —
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1275 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.8 (#37), GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1442 | 1448 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1490 | 1516 |
| LMArena French | 1470 | 1478 |
| LMArena German | 1443 | 1466 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1408 | 1436 |
| LMArena Korean | 1412 | 1423 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1453 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | 1467 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.7 (#86), GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1414 | 1451 |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#85), GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1467 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 63.0 (#66), GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1462 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1454 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1473 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1592 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Seed 2.0 Pro costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Seed 2.0 Pro or GLM-5.1?
Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is Seed 2.0 Pro or GLM-5.1 better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 42.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Seed 2.0 Pro does, with 256K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Seed 2.0 Pro and GLM-5.1 share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.