Seed 2.0 Code vs Qwen3.5 9B vs MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
Qwen3.5 9B comes out ahead, 79 to 57 and 41 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
ByteDance SeedSeed 2.0 Code
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.475 / $2.37
- Context262K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 9B
79/100- ECI139.5
- Price$0.10 / $0.15
- Context262K
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
41/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $2.40
- Context205K
Qwen3.5 9B is our pick
Qwen3.5 9B is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Seed 2.0 Code (57) and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41). It leads on price. 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 priceQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B $0.113 · Seed 2.0 Code $0.95 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed $1.05 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSeed 2.0 Code and Qwen3.5 9BSeed 2.0 Code 262,144 · Qwen3.5 9B 262,144 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 2.0 Code and Qwen3.5 9BSeed 2.0 Code: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.5 9B: Text, Images, Video · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed: Text
- Self-hostingQwen3.5 9B and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Seed 2.0 Code | Qwen3.5 9B | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 51 | 95 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 80 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 57/100 | 79/100 | 41/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Seed 2.0 CodeByteDance Seed | Qwen3.5 9BAlibaba (Qwen) | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 139.5 | — |
| ECI rank | — | #101 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 79.0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 61.7% | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.475 | $0.10 (best) | $0.60 |
| Output | $2.37 | $0.15 (best) | $2.40 |
| Cached input | $0.095 | — | $0.06 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.95 | $0.113 (best) | $1.05 |
| Long-context rate | Over 32K: $0.712 / $3.56 | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Volcengine Ark API | Median of 14 providers | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) | 204,800 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | Yes | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Open |
| API model ID | doubao-seed-2-0-code-preview-260215 | — | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed |
| API providers | 10 | 15 (best) | 7 |
| Released | Feb 14, 2026 | Feb 23, 2026 | Feb 13, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Seed 2.0 Code$9.50
- Qwen3.5 9B$1.30
- MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed$10.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Seed 2.0 Code, Qwen3.5 9B or MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed?
Qwen3.5 9B is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Seed 2.0 Code (57) and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41). It leads on price. 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 2.0 Code, Qwen3.5 9B or MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed?
Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). Seed 2.0 Code costs $0.475 input / $2.37 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price); MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed costs $0.60 input / $2.40 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.113 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 9B versus $0.95 for Seed 2.0 Code (8.4× as much) and $1.05 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (9.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Seed 2.0 Code has not been scored yet, Qwen3.5 9B has an ECI of 139.5 and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Seed 2.0 Code, Qwen3.5 9B and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Seed 2.0 Code and Qwen3.5 9B have the largest context windows (262,144 and 262,144 tokens), against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed. Maximum output per response: Seed 2.0 Code up to 131,072, Qwen3.5 9B up to 65,536, MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Seed 2.0 Code accepts text, images and video; Qwen3.5 9B accepts text, images and video; MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed accepts text. Seed 2.0 Code handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.5 9B and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Seed 2.0 Code is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 9B is the newest, released Feb 23, 2026. Seed 2.0 Code came out Feb 14, 2026; MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed came out Feb 13, 2026.
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 Oct 4, 2026.
