# Seed 2.0 Pro vs Gemma 3n E4b IT

> Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3n E4b IT costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Seed 2.0 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/dola-seed-2-0-pro-vs-gemma-3n-e4b-it
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Gemma 3n E4b IT in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Seed 2.0 Pro leads 63.0 to 50.3.
- Gemma 3n E4b IT is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.12 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.
- Gemma 3n E4b IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ByteDance Seed | Google |
| Noometry Index | 42.5 | 36.7 |
| Rank | 97 | 203 |
| Context | 256K | 33K |
| Input $/M | $0.50 | $0.06 |
| Output $/M | $3 | $0.12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Seed 2.0 Pro: 42.9 (#84)
- Gemma 3n E4b IT: 36.4 (#193)

| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1472 | 1269 |

## Reasoning

- Seed 2.0 Pro: 23.1 (#167)
- Gemma 3n E4b IT: 19.2 (#239)

| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1453 | 1284 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 31.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 28.4% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 57.1% | — |

## Math

- Seed 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#110)
- Gemma 3n E4b IT: 32.5 (#186)

| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1440 | 1251 |

## Knowledge

- Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.6 (#119)
- Gemma 3n E4b IT: 33.6 (#193)

| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1245 |

## Multimodal

- Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.8 (#34)
- Gemma 3n E4b IT: —

| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1275 | — |

## Multilingual

- Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.8 (#37)
- Gemma 3n E4b IT: 43.5 (#179)

| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1442 | 1285 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1490 | 1310 |
| LMArena French | 1470 | 1330 |
| LMArena German | 1443 | 1312 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1408 | 1274 |
| LMArena Korean | 1412 | 1259 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1288 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | 1305 |

## Instruction Following

- Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.7 (#86)
- Gemma 3n E4b IT: 66.3 (#205)

| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1414 | 1255 |

## Long Context

- Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#85)
- Gemma 3n E4b IT: 38.8 (#185)

| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1277 |

## Writing & Preference

- Seed 2.0 Pro: 63.0 (#66)
- Gemma 3n E4b IT: 50.3 (#181)

| Benchmark | Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1306 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1287 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1276 |

## FAQ

### Is Seed 2.0 Pro better than Gemma 3n E4b IT?

Seed 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3n E4b IT costs 15× 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 Gemma 3n E4b IT?

Gemma 3n E4b IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.12 per million output tokens; Seed 2.0 Pro lists at $0.50 and $3.

### Is Seed 2.0 Pro or Gemma 3n E4b IT better for coding?

Seed 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.9 versus 36.4 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 Gemma 3n E4b IT share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Seed 2.0 Pro has 20 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 3n E4b IT has 18.