ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Seed 1.6 Flash vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

Seed 1.6 Flash comes out ahead, 81 to 42 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    ByteDance Seed

    Seed 1.6 Flash

    Released Aug 28, 2025Deprecated

    81/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.022 / $0.223
    • Context256K
    Full specs Remove Seed 1.6 Flash

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

    Released Jul 25, 2025

    42/100
    • ECI143.8
    • Price$0.30 / $2.90
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Seed 1.6 Flash is our pick

Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 81/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (42). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash $0.072 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 $0.95 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 262,144 · Seed 1.6 Flash 256,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Publishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightSeed 1.6 FlashQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507
Price50%10049
Inputs & features30%8035
Context window20%3637
Overall100%81/10042/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Seed 1.6 Flash vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 specifications side by side
SpecificationSeed 1.6 FlashByteDance SeedQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)—143.8
ECI rank—#93 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—80.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—86.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—40.4%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.022 (best)$0.30
Output$0.223 (best)$2.90
Cached input$0.0044—
Blended (3:1)$0.072 (best)$0.95
Long-context rateOver 32K: $0.045 / $0.445Same rate
Price sourceOfficial Volcengine Ark APIMedian of 11 providers
Limits
Context window256,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output32,000 tokens81,920 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenApache 2.0
API model IDdoubao-seed-1-6-flash-250828—
API providers512 (best)
ReleasedAug 28, 2025Jul 25, 2025
Knowledge cutoff——
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Seed 1.6 Flash$0.668
  • Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507$8.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Seed 1.6 Flash or Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507?

Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 81/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (42). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Seed 1.6 Flash or Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507?

Seed 1.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.022 input / $0.223 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price). Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.30 input / $2.90 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.072 per million tokens for Seed 1.6 Flash versus $0.95 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (13× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Seed 1.6 Flash has not been scored yet and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 has an ECI of 143.8.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Seed 1.6 Flash and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 256,000 for Seed 1.6 Flash. Maximum output per response: Seed 1.6 Flash up to 32,000, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 up to 81,920 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Seed 1.6 Flash accepts text, images and video; Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 accepts text. Seed 1.6 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Seed 1.6 Flash is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Seed 1.6 Flash is the newest, released Aug 28, 2025. Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 came out Jul 25, 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons