Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B vs ByteDance Seed: Seed-2.0-Code
Side-by-side comparison of specs, pricing, benchmark scores, and task rankings. Updated 2026-09-30.
| Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B | ByteDance Seed: Seed-2.0-Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | qwen | bytedance-seed |
| Quality Score | 100 | 100 |
| Benchmark Score | 55.6 | - |
| Input Price | $0.42/M | $0.50/M |
| Output Price | $3.00/M | $3.00/M |
| Context Window | 1,000,000 | 262,144 |
| Max Output | 131,072 | 131,072 |
| Tool Calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| Structured Output | ✓ | ✓ |
| Reasoning Mode | ✓ | ✓ |
| Vision | ✓ | ✓ |
| Audio | - | - |
| Benchmark Scores | ||
| ai_index | 55.6 | - |
The verdict
For a sample job of 1 million input tokens and 250,000 output tokens, Qwen3.8 27B costs $1.17 and Seed-2.0-Code costs $1.25, so Qwen3.8 27B is slightly cheaper for the same work.
Qwen3.8 27B reads up to 1,000,000 tokens at once, roughly 1,500 pages of text, against about 393 pages for Seed-2.0-Code.
Across the 19 tasks where they differ, Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on 19 (SQL Generation, Code Review, Code Completion and others).
Pick Qwen3.8 27B if you need lower cost, long documents or the stronger all-round task scores.
Costs use current list prices per million tokens; page counts assume about 0.75 words per token and 500 words per page.
Who wins by task?
| Task | Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B | ByteDance Seed: Seed-2.0-Code |
|---|---|---|
| SQL Generation | 140 | 130 |
| Code Review | 142 | 126 |
| Code Completion | 132 | 128 |
| Code Refactoring | 144 | 127 |
| Bug Fixing | 146 | 130 |
| Unit Test Generation | 130 | 121 |
| Code Documentation | 136 | 125 |
| Regex Writing | 124 | 119 |
| CI/CD Pipelines | 126 | 117 |
| Frontend Component Design | 128 | 122 |
| Data Analysis | 132 | 124 |
| CSV / Spreadsheet Cleanup | 135 | 128 |
| ETL Scripting | 135 | 122 |
| Bulk Data Labeling | 129 | 128 |
| OCR / Document Parsing | 133 | 128 |
| Table Extraction from PDFs | 133 | 128 |
| Long-Document Summarization | 146 | 129 |
| Short-Form Summarization | 126 | 123 |
| Blog Post Writing | 128 | 118 |
Scores reflect capability match + benchmark data + pricing for each task. Methodology →