Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Seed-2.0-Code (low) vs Qwen3.8 27B (medium)

Qwen3.8 27B (medium) leads on average score with 7.8 vs 7.7. Local hardware cost was not measured, so cost comparisons are unavailable. Qwen3.8 27B (medium) is faster at 33.05s vs 72.24s, with pass rates of 77.3% vs 66.7%.

Last updated at: 2026-08-15

Rank
#73
Total Output Tokens
241,309
Response Time (avg)
72.24s
Total Cost
$0.767
Rank
#68
Total Output Tokens
136,162
Response Time (avg)
33.05s
Total Cost
N/A
Recommended model Qwen3.8 27B (medium)

It has the best score here (7.8), while responding about 2.2x faster than Seed-2.0-Code (low).

Detailed comparison

Metric Seed-2.0-Code Seed-2.0-Code low Release: 2026-08-12 Qwen3.8 27B Qwen3.8 27B medium Release: 2026-08-14
Score 7.7 7.8
Rank #73 #68
Reliability 8.5 9.6
Consistency 7.8 9.7
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 77.3% 66.7%
Flaky tests 6 1
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 5.899 N/A
Total Cost $0.767 N/A
Input Price $0.500 / 1M N/A
Output Price $3.000 / 1M N/A
Total Input Tokens 85,657 98,266
Output Tokens 8,142 1,861
Reasoning Tokens 233,167 134,301
Response Time (avg) 72.24s 33.05s
Response Time (max) 485.92s 214.63s
Response Time (total) 1589.31s 694.04s
Parameters ~200B total (~20B active) 27.3B
Availability Closed Weights available

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#73 Seed-2.0-Code

low
Provider returned error
Cost
$0.000
Time
0.3s
Tokens
0 tok

#68 Qwen3.8 27B

medium
Cost
N/A
Time
43.4s
Tokens
2,956 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

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
Qwen3.8 27B 10.0 10.0 100.0% 0 40.50s 7,893 585 26,808

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair