- Rank
- #87
- Total Output Tokens
- 253,807
- Response Time (avg)
- 73.02s
- Total Cost
- $0.881
Seed-2.0-Code (low) vs Ling 3.1 Flash (medium)
Ling 3.1 Flash (medium) leads on average score with 8.3 vs 8.1. Ling 3.1 Flash (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.000 vs $0.881. Seed-2.0-Code (low) is faster at 73.02s vs 88.74s, with pass rates of 78.3% vs 71.0%.
Compared models
- Rank
- #81
- Total Output Tokens
- 648,854
- Response Time (avg)
- 88.74s
- Total Cost
- $0.000
Recommended model
Seed-2.0-Code (low)
It offers the best overall trade-off: a competitive score (8.1), faster response than Ling 3.1 Flash (medium), and balanced cost.
Detailed comparison
| Metric | Seed-2.0-Code Seed-2.0-Code low | Ling 3.1 Flash Ling 3.1 Flash medium |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 8.1 | 8.3 |
| Rank | #87 | #81 |
| Reliability | 8.9 | 9.6 |
| Consistency | 7.9 | 8.8 |
| Attempts | 69/69 | 69/69 |
| Tests Correct | ||
| Attempt pass rate | 78.3% | 71.0% |
| Flaky tests | 6 | 3 |
| Total Runs | 69 | 69 |
| Cost per result | 6.288 | 0.000 |
| Total Cost | $0.881 | $0.000 |
| Input Price | $0.500 / 1M | $0.000 / 1M |
| Output Price | $3.000 / 1M | $0.000 / 1M |
| Cache Read Price | N/A | N/A |
| Cache Write Price | N/A | N/A |
| Total Input Tokens | 237,604 | 369,495 |
| Output Tokens | 9,617 | 172,852 |
| Reasoning Tokens | 244,190 | 476,002 |
| Response Time (avg) | 73.02s | 88.74s |
| Response Time (max) | 485.92s | 567.88s |
| Response Time (total) | 1679.49s | 2041.10s |
| Parameters | ~200B total (~20B active) | 560B total (25B active) |
| Availability | Closed | Closed |
Cache prices apply to input tokens. Reads reuse cached prompts; writes store them and can cost extra. Output tokens use the output price.
Model generation showcase
Hamster playing table tennis
Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.
#87 Seed-2.0-Code
low
Provider returned error
- Cost
- $0.000
- Time
- 0.3s
- Tokens
- 0 tok
#81 Ling 3.1 Flash
medium- Cost
- $0.000
- Time
- 101.1s
- Tokens
- 11,607 tok
Top Models by Score
Score vs Total Cost
Response Time (avg)
Score vs Response Time (avg)
Total Output Tokens
Score vs Total Output Tokens
Category Breakdown
| Agentic | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 90.18s | 151,947 | 1,475 | 11,023 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 100.10s | 233,792 | 12,506 | 12,249 |
| Anti-AI Tricks | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 8.7 | 7.9 | 91.7% | 1 | 39.56s | 930 | 2,650 | 15,987 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 4.24s | 750 | 1,152 | 3,396 |
| Coding | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 7.0 | 7.1 | 55.6% | 1 | 109.70s | 7,948 | 455 | 55,759 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 87.15s | 8,298 | 19,577 | 62,002 |
| Combined | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 7.3 | 5.8 | 83.3% | 1 | 99.12s | 55,969 | 3,774 | 21,408 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 6.6 | 9.1 | 50.0% | 0 | 306.46s | 106,402 | 26,806 | 100,471 |
| Data parsing and extraction | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 24.88s | 8,046 | 246 | 1,639 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 20.92s | 8,016 | 1,334 | 3,754 |
| Domain specific | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 4.1 | 4.4 | 44.5% | 2 | 238.45s | 975 | 16 | 132,626 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 2.9 | 7.2 | 11.1% | 1 | 262.25s | 837 | 100,307 | 228,869 |
| General Intelligence | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 6.5 | 3.4 | 66.7% | 1 | 11.14s | 579 | 179 | 1,117 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 5.3 | 10.0 | 0.0% | 0 | 7.28s | 546 | 152 | 1,820 |
| Instructions following | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 9.8 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 12.20s | 828 | 72 | 1,034 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 9.8 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 3.57s | 744 | 323 | 1,317 |
| Puzzle Solving | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 9.9 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 12.50s | 885 | 445 | 2,470 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 8.2 | 7.2 | 88.9% | 1 | 42.32s | 747 | 5,455 | 40,080 |
| Tool Calling | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 55.56s | 9,315 | 296 | 637 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 2.8 | 2.1 | 33.3% | 1 | 47.17s | 9,135 | 3,850 | 12,018 |
| Trivia | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed-2.0-Code | 3.0 | 10.0 | 0.0% | 0 | 10.02s | 182 | 9 | 490 | |
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 3.0 | 10.0 | 0.0% | 0 | 32.55s | 228 | 1,390 | 10,026 |
Quick Compare
Switch Comparison Pair
Ling 3.1 FlashmediumvsGrok 4.5highLing 3.1 FlashmediumvsKimi K3maxSeed-2.0-CodelowvsDeepSeek V4 Pro 0423highGemini 3.5 FlashhighvsLing 3.1 FlashmediumClaude Opus 4.7mediumvsSeed-2.0-CodelowSeed-2.0-CodelowvsDeepSeek V4 Flash 0423highLing 3.1 FlashmediumvsGPT-5.6 TerrahighSeed-2.0-CodelowvsGPT-5.6 TerramediumSeed-2.0-CodelowvsGLM 5.2mediumLing 3.1 FlashmediumvsGLM 5.2highSeed-2.0-CodelowvsGrok 4.5highDeepSeek V4 Flash 0731highvsLing 3.1 Flashmedium