Seed 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3.5 27B vs MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
Qwen3.5 27B comes out ahead, 61 to 57 and 41 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
ByteDance SeedSeed 2.0 Pro
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.475 / $2.37
- Context256K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 27B
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $2.40
- Context262K
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
41/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $2.40
- Context205K
Qwen3.5 27B is our pick
Qwen3.5 27B is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against Seed 2.0 Pro (57) and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41). 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 priceQwen3.5 27BQwen3.5 27B $0.825 · Seed 2.0 Pro $0.95 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed $1.05 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 27BQwen3.5 27B 262,144 · Seed 2.0 Pro 256,000 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 27BSeed 2.0 Pro: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.5 27B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed: Text
- Self-hostingQwen3.5 27B and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Seed 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5 27B | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 51 | 54 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 90 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 37 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 57/100 | 61/100 | 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 ProByteDance Seed | Qwen3.5 27BAlibaba (Qwen) | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.475 | $0.30 (best) | $0.60 |
| Output | $2.37 (best) | $2.40 | $2.40 |
| Cached input | $0.095 | — | $0.06 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.95 | $0.825 (best) | $1.05 |
| Long-context rate | Over 32K: $0.712 / $3.56 | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Volcengine Ark API | Official Alibaba API | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 204,800 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | 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-pro-260215 | qwen3.5-27b | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed |
| API providers | 5 | 16 (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 Pro$9.50
- Qwen3.5 27B$7.80
- MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed$10.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Seed 2.0 Pro, Qwen3.5 27B or MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed?
Qwen3.5 27B is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against Seed 2.0 Pro (57) and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41). 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 2.0 Pro, Qwen3.5 27B or MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed?
Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 input / $2.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Seed 2.0 Pro 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 $0.825 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 27B versus $0.95 for Seed 2.0 Pro (1.2× as much) and $1.05 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Seed 2.0 Pro has not been scored yet, Qwen3.5 27B has not been scored yet 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 Pro, Qwen3.5 27B 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?
Qwen3.5 27B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 256,000 for Seed 2.0 Pro and 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed. Maximum output per response: Seed 2.0 Pro up to 128,000, Qwen3.5 27B up to 65,536, MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Seed 2.0 Pro accepts text, images and video; Qwen3.5 27B accepts text, images, audio and video; MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed accepts text. Qwen3.5 27B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.5 27B and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Seed 2.0 Pro is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 27B is the newest, released Feb 23, 2026. Seed 2.0 Pro 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.
