Model comparison
Seed 2.0 Pro vs Qwen2.5-Max
Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
ByteDance Seed
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Seed 2.0 Pro leads 62.9 to 55.4.
Side by side
| Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ByteDance Seed | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.2 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2026-02-14 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3 | — |
| Results tracked | 20 | 27 |
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-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1472 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1453 | 1360 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 28.4% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1439 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
Knowledge Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1274 | — |
Multilingual Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1489 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1442 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1408 | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1449 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | 1377 |
Instruction Following Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1414 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Seed 2.0 Pro or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.5 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Seed 2.0 Pro and Qwen2.5-Max share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.