Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Seed 2.0 Pro
Claude Opus 4 and Seed 2.0 Pro score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.1 vs 43.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
ByteDance SeedSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 5 categories and Seed 2.0 Pro in 4 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multimodal, where Seed 2.0 Pro leads 41.5 to 31.5.
- Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
- Seed 2.0 Pro accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | ByteDance Seed |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 43.2 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2026-02-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 256K |
| Max output | 32K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 56 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62), Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.5 (#86)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1472 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), Seed 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), Seed 2.0 Pro: 24.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1453 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 28.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 57.1% |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), Seed 2.0 Pro: 39.3 (#108)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1439 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88), Seed 2.0 Pro: 40.2 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1440 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), Seed 2.0 Pro: 41.5 (#35)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | 1274 |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), Seed 2.0 Pro: 54.5 (#39)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1441 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1489 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | 1471 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1442 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | 1408 |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | 1411 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1449 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | 1460 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), Seed 2.0 Pro: 74.5 (#91)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1414 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), Seed 2.0 Pro: 43.6 (#90)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1428 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Seed 2.0 Pro leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), Seed 2.0 Pro: 62.9 (#69)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1448 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1406 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1441 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than Seed 2.0 Pro?
Claude Opus 4 and Seed 2.0 Pro score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.1 vs 43.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 or Seed 2.0 Pro?
Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4 or Seed 2.0 Pro better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 43.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Seed 2.0 Pro does, with 256K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and Seed 2.0 Pro share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Seed 2.0 Pro has 20.