Model comparison
Seed 2.0 Pro vs GPT-4o
Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
ByteDance SeedSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 9 categories and GPT-4o in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Seed 2.0 Pro leads 39.3 to 10.6.
- Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for GPT-4o.
- Seed 2.0 Pro accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ByteDance Seed | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 43.2 | 28.6 |
| Released | 2026-02-14 | 2024-05-13 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3 | $10 |
| Results tracked | 20 | 72 |
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-4o: 24.8 (#328)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1472 | 1297 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 31% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 21.6% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 45.3% |
| GSO | — | 0% |
| WeirdML | — | 25.1% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 51.1% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 51.4% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 61.1% |
| CadEval | — | 26% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 72.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Seed 2.0 Pro: —, GPT-4o: 21.0 (#141)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| GDPval | — | 9.9% |
| TheAgentCompany | — | 8.6% |
| Cybench | — | 12.5% |
| BALROG | — | 32.3% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1006 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 40.8% |
Reasoning Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165), GPT-4o: 9.4 (#343)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1453 | 1281 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| SimpleBench | — | 17.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 28.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 4.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 13% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 0.8% |
| Thematic Generalization | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 55.8% |
| DTBench | — | 64.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 60.9% |
| LMCA | — | 16.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.97 |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.7 |
| LiveBench | — | 55.3% |
Math Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108), GPT-4o: 10.6 (#312)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1439 | 1285 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 0.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 6.4% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.3% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 49.5% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 53.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 0.3% |
Knowledge Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122), GPT-4o: 28.8 (#242)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1250 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 49.2% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 2.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 26% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 71.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.6% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 52% |
| MMLU | — | 88.1% |
Multimodal Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35), GPT-4o: 34.5 (#91)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1274 | 1137 |
| Video-MME | — | 71.9% |
| GeoBench | — | 71% |
| VPCT | — | 40% |
| ScienceQA | — | 88.5% |
Multilingual Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39), GPT-4o: 43.2 (#186)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1283 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1489 | 1277 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1304 |
| LMArena German | 1442 | 1282 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1408 | 1257 |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | 1234 |
| LMArena Russian | 1449 | 1286 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | 1292 |
Instruction Following Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91), GPT-4o: 66.6 (#207)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1414 | 1278 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 68.6% |
| IFEval | — | 81.7% |
Long Context Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90), GPT-4o: 39.4 (#179)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1289 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
Writing & Preference Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69), GPT-4o: 52.6 (#166)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1300 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1292 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1302 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 81.8% |
| WildBench | — | 82.8% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 47.6% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than GPT-4o?
Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Seed 2.0 Pro or GPT-4o?
Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; GPT-4o lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Seed 2.0 Pro or GPT-4o better for coding?
Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.5 versus 24.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Seed 2.0 Pro does, with 256K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Seed 2.0 Pro and GPT-4o share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and GPT-4o has 72.