Model comparison
Seed 2.0 Pro vs GPT-4.1 nano
Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Seed 2.0 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
ByteDance SeedSummary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 9 categories and GPT-4.1 nano in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Seed 2.0 Pro leads 62.9 to 40.5.
- GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Seed 2.0 Pro.
- GPT-4.1 nano accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 256K.
Side by side
| Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ByteDance Seed | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 43.2 | 27.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-14 | 2025-04-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 20 | 38 |
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: 43.5 (#86), GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1472 | 1306 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 8.9% |
| SciCode | — | 25.9% |
| WeirdML | — | 19% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Seed 2.0 Pro: —, GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 33% |
Reasoning Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165), GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1453 | 1286 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 33.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 28.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 0% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Thematic Generalization | 57.1% | — |
| DTBench | — | 52.5% |
| LMCA | — | 5.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 129.62 |
Math Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108), GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1439 | 1274 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 28.9% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 36.7% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 70% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1% |
Knowledge Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122), GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1272 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 48.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 6% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 55% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50.7% |
Multimodal Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35), GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1274 | 1063 |
Multilingual Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39), GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1260 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1489 | 1270 |
| LMArena German | 1442 | 1288 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1408 | 1198 |
| LMArena Russian | 1449 | 1261 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | — |
Instruction Following Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91), GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1414 | 1267 |
| IFEval | — | 84.3% |
Long Context Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90), GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1283 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 25% |
Writing & Preference Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69), GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1285 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1260 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1277 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 946 |
| WildBench | — | 81.2% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than GPT-4.1 nano?
Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Seed 2.0 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Seed 2.0 Pro or GPT-4.1 nano?
GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Seed 2.0 Pro lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is Seed 2.0 Pro or GPT-4.1 nano better for coding?
Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.5 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-4.1 nano does, with 1.05M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Seed 2.0 Pro and GPT-4.1 nano share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and GPT-4.1 nano has 38.