Model comparison
Seed 2.0 Pro vs o3
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Seed 2.0 Pro costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
ByteDance SeedSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 3 categories and o3 in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where o3 leads 54.6 to 40.2.
- Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $8 for o3.
- Seed 2.0 Pro accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ByteDance Seed | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 43.2 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-02-14 | 2025-04-16 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 200K |
| Max output | 128K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3 | $8 |
| Results tracked | 20 | 63 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o3 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.5 (#86), o3: 46.8 (#64)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1472 | 1408 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 62.3% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 58.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 81.3% |
| GSO | — | 8.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 52.4% |
| CadEval | — | 74% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 933.55 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Seed 2.0 Pro: —, o3: 34.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 63% |
| GDPval | — | 30.8% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 45.2% |
| OSWorld | — | 23% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1144 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 65.4% |
Reasoning o3 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165), o3: 32.0 (#78)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1453 | 1402 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 6.5% |
| SimpleBench | — | 53.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 67.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 28.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 60.8% |
| CritPt | — | 1.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 38% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 13.1% |
| Thematic Generalization | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 29% |
| DTBench | — | 84.8% |
| LMCA | — | 39.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.86 |
| ForecastBench | — | 62.5 |
Math o3 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108), o3: 50.2 (#58)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1439 | 1426 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 33.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 71.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 18.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge o3 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122), o3: 54.6 (#52)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1402 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 81.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 20.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.9% |
| Confabulations | — | 14.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 75.3% |
Multimodal Too close to call
Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35), o3: 41.4 (#36)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1274 | 1214 |
| GeoBench | — | 74% |
| VPCT | — | 52% |
Multilingual Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39), o3: 51.7 (#105)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1401 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1489 | 1437 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1430 |
| LMArena German | 1442 | 1420 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1408 | 1403 |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | 1370 |
| LMArena Russian | 1449 | 1406 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | 1395 |
Instruction Following Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91), o3: 72.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1414 | 1368 |
| IFEval | — | 86.9% |
Long Context o3 leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90), o3: 53.3 (#6)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1372 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 88.9% |
| CL-bench | — | 17.8% |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69), o3: 63.5 (#64)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1410 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1359 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1405 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 83.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1676 |
| WildBench | — | 86.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than o3?
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Seed 2.0 Pro costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Seed 2.0 Pro or o3?
Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; o3 lists at $2 and $8.
Is Seed 2.0 Pro or o3 better for coding?
o3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.8 versus 43.5 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 o3 share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and o3 has 63.