#66 Seed-2.0-Lite
none- Cost
- $0.005
- Time
- 83.8s
- Tokens
- 2,311 tok
Bytedance Seed
Release: 2026-02-14
Tested on: 2026-04-11 01:44
bytedance-seed/seed-2.0-lite::none
~200B total (~20B active)MoEClosedEstimated
(medium)
(none)
Summary
Seed-2.0-Lite scores 6.2 on AI BENCHY and ranks #66. It has N/A reliability, a 55.6% pass rate, $0.016 total cost, and 2.53s average response time.
What makes Seed-2.0-Lite unique: It stands out most in Instructions following, where it ranks #1, while Anti-AI Tricks is its weakest area at #18. Its total benchmark cost is unusually low for its score range. It is notably fast compared with similar models.
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. Seed2 tiers are public, but their parameter counts are not.
6.2
Consistency
7.7
N/A
$0.016
Total Output Tokens
3,129
Total Input Tokens
0
Input Price
$0.250 / 1M
Output Price
$2.000 / 1M
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.
Run history
| Tested on | Score | Reliability | Tests Correct | Total Cost | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-14 02:57 Re-test | 6.2 | 10.0 | $0.066 | Compare | |
| 2026-07-16 23:10 New test added | 6.2 | 10.0 | $0.066 | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 14:17 New test added | 5.8 | 10.0 | $0.019 | Compare | |
| 2026-05-22 00:33 Suite changed | 5.9 | 10.0 | $0.018 | Compare | |
| 2026-04-11 01:44 First recorded run | 6.2 | N/A | $0.016 | Current run |
Run comparison
| Run | Benchmark coverage | Score | Consistency | Reliability | Tests Correct | Flaky tests | Total Output Tokens | Total Input Tokens | Total Cost | Response Time (avg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-11 01:44 · First recorded run | 54/54 attempts | 6.2 | 7.7 | N/A | 8/18 | 5 | 3,129 | 0 | $0.016 | 2.53s |
| 2026-08-14 02:57 · Re-test | 66/66 attempts | 6.2 | 8.9 | 10.0 | 8/22 | 3 | 14,744 | 142,206 | $0.066 | 4.37s |
| Difference | — | 0.0 | -1.2 | 0 | +2 | -11615 | -142206 | -$0.050 | -1847ms |
Benchmark coverage differs: 54/54 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
Seed-2.0-LitenonevsRing-2.6-1TmediumSeed-2.0-LitenonevsGemma 4 31BmediumFree AvailableSeed-2.0-LitenonevsLing-3.0-flashhighSeed-2.0-LitenonevsGPT-5.6 LunalowSeed-2.0-LitenonevsMiMo-V2.5mediumSeed-2.0-LitenonevsClaude Sonnet 5noneSeed-2.0-LitenonevsLongCat 2.0noneSeed-2.0-LitenonevsGemini 3.1 Flash LiteminimalSeed-2.0-LitenonevsDots 3 Note PreviewhighFree AvailableSeed-2.0-LitenonevsQwen3.5-35B-A3Bmedium
Category Breakdown
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-AI Tricks | 3.0 | 5.9 | |
| Coding | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Combined | 3.0 | 10.0 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Domain specific | 3.6 | 7.2 | |
| General Intelligence | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Instructions following | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 5.2 | 4.4 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 |