Seed 2.0 Code vs Qwen3.5 9B
Qwen3.5 9B comes out ahead, 79 to 57 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
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.5 9B is our pick
Qwen3.5 9B is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Seed 2.0 Code (57). 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 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameSeed 2.0 Code 262,144 · Qwen3.5 9B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsSeed 2.0 Code: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.5 9B: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.5 9BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Seed 2.0 Code | Qwen3.5 9B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 51 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 57/100 | 79/100 |
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) |
|---|---|---|
| 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) |
| Output | $2.37 | $0.15 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.095 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.95 | $0.113 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Over 32K: $0.712 / $3.56 | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Volcengine Ark API | Median of 14 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | doubao-seed-2-0-code-preview-260215 | — |
| API providers | 10 | 15 (best) |
| Released | Feb 14, 2026 | Feb 23, 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
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Seed 2.0 Code or Qwen3.5 9B?
Qwen3.5 9B is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Seed 2.0 Code (57). 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 or Qwen3.5 9B?
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). 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).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Seed 2.0 Code has not been scored yet and Qwen3.5 9B has an ECI of 139.5.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Seed 2.0 Code and Qwen3.5 9B 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?
Seed 2.0 Code and Qwen3.5 9B share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Seed 2.0 Code up to 131,072, Qwen3.5 9B up to 65,536 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. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.5 9B 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.
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.
