Noometry

Model comparison

Seed 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3.5 27B

Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Seed 2.0 Pro ByteDance Seed

43.2

Rank #96 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Seed 2.0 Pro leads 43.5 to 38.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 28.4% for Seed 2.0 Pro and 47.9% for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Seed 2.0 Pro.
  • Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.
  • Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Seed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
ProviderByteDance SeedAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.241.9
Released2026-02-142026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window256K262K
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.50$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$3$2.40
Results tracked2028

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), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding14721427
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Seed 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
NYT Connections (extended)28.4%47.9%
Thematic Generalization57.1%45.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14531414
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math14391429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%

Knowledge Seed 2.0 Pro leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert14401428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal Seed 2.0 Pro leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35), Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision12741241

Multilingual Seed 2.0 Pro leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English14411390
LMArena Chinese14891478
LMArena French14711410
LMArena German14421393
LMArena Japanese14081345
LMArena Korean14111358
LMArena Russian14491390
LMArena Spanish14601407

Instruction Following Seed 2.0 Pro leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14141393

Long Context Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query14281413

Writing & Preference Seed 2.0 Pro leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text14481409
LMArena Creative Writing14061362
LMArena Multi-Turn14411410

Frequently asked questions

Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Seed 2.0 Pro or Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Seed 2.0 Pro lists at $0.50 and $3.

Is Seed 2.0 Pro or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.5 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Seed 2.0 Pro and Qwen3.5 27B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper