Seed 2.1 Turbo vs Step 3.5 Flash 2603 vs Motif 3
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 comes out ahead, 62 to 57 and 44 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
ByteDance SeedSeed 2.1 Turbo
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.445 / $2.23
- Context256K
- Our pick
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash 2603
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
Motif Technologies
Motif 3
44/100- ECI—
- Price$0.50 / $2.00
- Context262K
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is our pick
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Seed 2.1 Turbo (57) and Motif 3 (44). It leads on price. Seed 2.1 Turbo wins on 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 priceStep 3.5 Flash 2603Step 3.5 Flash 2603 $0.15 · Motif 3 $0.875 · Seed 2.1 Turbo $0.891 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMotif 3Motif 3 262,144 · Seed 2.1 Turbo 256,000 · Step 3.5 Flash 2603 256,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 2.1 TurboSeed 2.1 Turbo: Text, Images, Video · Step 3.5 Flash 2603: Text · Motif 3: Text
- Self-hostingStep 3.5 Flash 2603 and Motif 3Publishes downloadable weights (MIT)
| Measure | Weight | Seed 2.1 Turbo | Step 3.5 Flash 2603 | Motif 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 52 | 89 | 53 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 36 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 57/100 | 62/100 | 44/100 |
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 2.1 TurboByteDance Seed | Step 3.5 Flash 2603StepFun | Motif 3Motif Technologies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.445 | $0.10 (best) | $0.50 |
| Output | $2.23 | $0.30 (best) | $2.00 |
| Cached input | $0.089 | $0.02 (best) | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.891 | $0.15 (best) | $0.875 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Volcengine Ark API | Official StepFun (Global) API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 256,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yeslow · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | doubao-seed-2-1-turbo-260628 | step-3.5-flash-2603 | — |
| API providers | 4 (best) | 3 | 1 |
| Released | Jun 23, 2026 | Apr 2, 2026 | Aug 7, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jan 2025 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Seed 2.1 Turbo$8.91
- Step 3.5 Flash 2603$1.60
- Motif 3$9.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Seed 2.1 Turbo, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 or Motif 3?
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Seed 2.1 Turbo (57) and Motif 3 (44). It leads on price. Seed 2.1 Turbo wins on 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 2.1 Turbo, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 or Motif 3?
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). Motif 3 costs $0.50 input / $2.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Seed 2.1 Turbo costs $0.445 input / $2.23 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Step 3.5 Flash 2603 versus $0.875 for Motif 3 (5.8× as much) and $0.891 for Seed 2.1 Turbo (5.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Seed 2.1 Turbo has not been scored yet, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 has not been scored yet and Motif 3 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Seed 2.1 Turbo, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 and Motif 3 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?
Motif 3 has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 256,000 for Seed 2.1 Turbo and 256,000 for Step 3.5 Flash 2603. Maximum output per response: Seed 2.1 Turbo up to 256,000, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 up to 256,000, Motif 3 up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Seed 2.1 Turbo accepts text, images and video; Step 3.5 Flash 2603 accepts text; Motif 3 accepts text. Seed 2.1 Turbo handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 and Motif 3 publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Seed 2.1 Turbo is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Motif 3 is the newest, released Aug 7, 2026. Seed 2.1 Turbo came out Jun 23, 2026; Step 3.5 Flash 2603 came out Apr 2, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Step 3.5 Flash 2603 Jan 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 Oct 4, 2026.
