Model comparison
Seed 2.0 Pro vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 1.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Seed 2.0 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
ByteDance Seed
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Seed 2.0 Pro leads 62.9 to 41.6.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Seed 2.0 Pro.
- Seed 2.0 Pro accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 33K.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ByteDance Seed | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.2 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2026-02-14 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 256K | 33K |
| Max output | 128K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 20 | 31 |
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), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1472 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Reasoning Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1453 | 1251 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 28.4% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.49 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1439 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1274 | — |
Multilingual Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1489 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1449 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | — |
| LMArena German | 1442 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1408 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | — |
Instruction Following Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1414 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 1.5× 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 Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Seed 2.0 Pro lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is Seed 2.0 Pro or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.5 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Seed 2.0 Pro does, with 256K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Seed 2.0 Pro and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.