- Score
- 8.6 (+1.10 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.061 · 95.8% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 7.51s · 94.0% faster
Summary
Seed-2.0-Code scores 7.5 on AI BENCHY and ranks #177. It has 9.0 reliability, a 65.2% pass rate, $1.448 total cost, and 124.87s average response time.
What makes Seed-2.0-Code unique: It stands out most in Data parsing and extraction, where it ranks #1, while General Intelligence is its weakest area at #14.
Recommended alternatives
We recommend choosing one of these models instead:
- Score
- 9.4 (+1.89 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.183 · 87.4% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 6.24s · 95.0% faster
- Score
- 8.3 (+0.79 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.047 · 96.8% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 18.07s · 85.5% faster
Model facts
Researched on 2026-08-12
- Parameters
- ~200B total (~20B active)
- Architecture
- MoE
- Availability
- Closed
- License
- -
Best estimate from public evidence; the vendor did not disclose every value. ByteDance documents the API-only Code model, but does not disclose its architecture or parameter counts; estimate follows the Seed2 production tier.
7.5
Consistency
7.9
9.0
$1.448
Total Output Tokens
432,850
Total Input Tokens
297,321
Input Price
$0.500 / 1M
Output Price
$3.000 / 1M
Cache Read Price
N/A
Cache Write Price
N/A
Cache prices apply to input tokens. Reads reuse cached prompts; writes store them and can cost extra. Output tokens use the output price.
Flaky tests
5
Flaky tests had mixed outcomes across runs (at least one pass and one fail).
Hamster playing table tennis
Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.
#177 Seed-2.0-Code
high- Cost
- $0.037
- Time
- 183.6s
- Tokens
- 12,388 tok
Run history
| Tested on | Score | Reliability | Tests Correct | Total Cost | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-01 04:14 Re-test | 7.5 | 9.0 | $1.448 | Current run | |
| 2026-08-12 23:09 Initial run | 6.9 | 6.0 | $1.312 | Compare |
This run used a different benchmark suite. Keep suite changes in mind when reading historical movement.
Run comparison
| Run | Benchmark coverage | Score | Consistency | Reliability | Tests Correct | Flaky tests | Total Output Tokens | Total Input Tokens | Total Cost | Response Time (avg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-01 04:14 · Current run | 69/69 attempts | 7.5 | 7.9 | 9.0 | 12/23 | 5 | 432,850 | 297,321 | $1.448 | 124.87s |
| 2026-08-12 23:09 · Initial run | 66/66 attempts | 6.9 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 11/22 | 8 | 423,424 | 81,961 | $1.312 | 127.79s |
| Difference | — | +0.6 | +0.9 | +3.0 | +1 | -3 | +9426 | +215360 | +$0.136 | -2917ms |
Benchmark coverage differs: 69/69 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 66/66 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test). Totals and repeat-sensitive metrics are not directly comparable.
These two runs used different benchmark suites, so the deltas reflect both model changes and suite changes.
Charts
Choose the first model, then click a second model to open a side-by-side page.
Top Models by Score
Score vs Total Cost
Response Time (avg)
Score vs Response Time (avg)
Total Output Tokens
Score vs Total Output Tokens
Quick Compare
Category Breakdown
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Anti-AI Tricks | 8.3 | 10.0 | |
| Coding | 6.2 | 6.5 | |
| Combined | 7.3 | 5.8 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Domain specific | 3.5 | 4.4 | |
| General Intelligence | 4.6 | 7.8 | |
| Instructions following | 9.8 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 7.8 | 9.3 | |
| Tool Calling | 4.7 | 1.6 | |
| Trivia | 3.0 | 10.0 |