Noometry

Model comparison

Seed 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3.5 Plus

Seed 2.0 Pro and Qwen3.5 Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.2 vs 42.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Seed 2.0 Pro ByteDance Seed

43.2

Rank #96 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

42.9

Rank #106 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 Plus leads 49.6 to 39.3.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Seed 2.0 Pro.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Seed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
ProviderByteDance SeedAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.242.9
Released2026-02-142026-02-16
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window256K1M
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.50$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$3$2.40
Results tracked2015

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.5 (#86), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Coding1472—
ALE-Bench—621.92

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Seed 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—0.54

Reasoning Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.8 (#74)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
NYT Connections (extended)28.4%—
Chess Puzzles—22%
Thematic Generalization57.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1453—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—80.5%
LMCA—36.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.78

Math Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108), Qwen3.5 Plus: 49.6 (#61)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LMArena Math1439—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—21%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#83)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
GPQA Diamond—84.8%
SimpleQA Verified—25.4%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.7%
LMArena Expert1440—

Multimodal Not comparable

Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Vision1274—

Multilingual Not comparable

Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Non-English1441—
LMArena Chinese1489—
LMArena French1471—
LMArena German1442—
LMArena Japanese1408—
LMArena Korean1411—
LMArena Russian1449—
LMArena Spanish1460—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following1414—

Long Context Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90), Qwen3.5 Plus: 43.0 (#113)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
CL-bench—19.8%
CL-bench Life—12.4%
LMArena Longer Query1428—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Text1448—
LMArena Creative Writing1406—
LMArena Multi-Turn1441—

Frequently asked questions

Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3.5 Plus?

Seed 2.0 Pro and Qwen3.5 Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.2 vs 42.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

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

Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Seed 2.0 Pro lists at $0.50 and $3.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

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

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper