Model comparison
Seed 2.0 Pro vs Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Seed 2.0 Pro costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6'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 2 categories and Grok 4.6 in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.4 to 24.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 28.4% for Seed 2.0 Pro and 80% for Grok 4.6.
- Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.6 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 256K.
Side by side
| Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ByteDance Seed | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 43.2 | 56.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-14 | 2026-08-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 500K |
| Max output | 128K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 20 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.5 (#86), Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1472 | 1465 |
| DeepSWE | — | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 48% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1617 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
| SciCode | — | 56.5% |
| WeirdML | — | 67.3% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,508 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Seed 2.0 Pro: —, Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 65.3% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 17.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,047 |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165), Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 28.4% | 80% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1453 | 1447 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 67.1% |
| SimpleBench | — | 75.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| CritPt | — | 19.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 40% |
| Thematic Generalization | 57.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 30.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 34% |
| DTBench | — | 97.3% |
| LMCA | — | 48.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 156.44 |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108), Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1439 | 1423 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | — | 51% |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122), Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1467 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 94% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.3% |
Multimodal Grok 4.6 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35), Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1274 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1452 |
Multilingual Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39), Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1489 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1442 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1408 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1449 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91), Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1414 | 1431 |
Long Context Too close to call
Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90), Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1454 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69), Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1425 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Seed 2.0 Pro costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Seed 2.0 Pro or Grok 4.6?
Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Seed 2.0 Pro or Grok 4.6 better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 43.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.6 does, with 500K tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Seed 2.0 Pro and Grok 4.6 share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.