Noometry

Model comparison

Seed 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Seed 2.0 Pro ByteDance Seed

43.2

Rank #96 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Plus in 8 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 39.3 to 24.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 28.4% for Seed 2.0 Pro and 74.8% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Seed 2.0 Pro.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Seed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
ProviderByteDance SeedAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.245.3
Released2026-02-142026-06-02
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window256K1M
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.50$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$3$1.60
Results tracked2032

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), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Coding14721473
FrontierCode—10.2%
SciCode—45.5%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Seed 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
NYT Connections (extended)28.4%74.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts14531460
CritPt—9.1%
Chess Puzzles—24%
Thematic Generalization57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84%
LMCA—37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.37

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Math14391466
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Expert14401467
GPQA Diamond—87.9%

Multimodal Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35), Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision12741279
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English14411445
LMArena Chinese14891510
LMArena French14711473
LMArena German14421471
LMArena Japanese14081413
LMArena Korean14111415
LMArena Russian14491457
LMArena Spanish14601457

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14141440

Long Context Too close to call

Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query14281455

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

BenchmarkSeed 2.0 ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text14481455
LMArena Creative Writing14061439
LMArena Multi-Turn14411460

Frequently asked questions

Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Seed 2.0 Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; Seed 2.0 Pro lists at $0.50 and $3.

Is Seed 2.0 Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.5 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Seed 2.0 Pro and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper