Model comparison
Seed 2.0 Pro vs Qwen-14B
Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
ByteDance Seed
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Seed 2.0 Pro leads 62.9 to 27.6.
- Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ByteDance Seed | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.2 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2026-02-14 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 256K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3 | — |
| Results tracked | 20 | 18 |
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), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1472 | 1071 |
Reasoning Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1453 | 1027 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 28.4% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 57.1% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1439 | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1274 | — |
Multilingual Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1489 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | — |
| LMArena German | 1442 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1408 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | — |
Instruction Following Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1414 | 1031 |
Long Context Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than Qwen-14B?
Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Seed 2.0 Pro or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.5 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Seed 2.0 Pro and Qwen-14B share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.