| Signal | Seed-2.0-Lite | Delta | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | -- | |
Pricing | 2 | +2 | |
Context window size | 86 | +0 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 85 | +5 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 5 | 0 wins |
13
days ranked higher
4
days
13
days ranked higher
ByteDance
Alibaba
Qwen3.5-9B saves you $112.50/month
That's $1350.00/year compared to Seed-2.0-Lite at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Seed-2.0-Lite | Qwen3.5-9B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 85 | 85 | -- |
| Rank | #25 | #26 | Seed-2.0-Lite |
| Quality Rank | #25 | #26 | Seed-2.0-Lite |
| Adoption Rank | #25 | #26 | Seed-2.0-Lite |
| Parameters | -- | 9B | -- |
| Context Window | 262K | 256K | Seed-2.0-Lite |
| Pricing | $0.25/$2.00/M | $0.05/$0.15/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 83 | Seed-2.0-Lite |
| Pricing | 2 | 0 | Seed-2.0-Lite |
| Context window size | 86 | 86 | Seed-2.0-Lite |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Seed-2.0-Lite |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 80 | Seed-2.0-Lite |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 85/100 (rank #25), placing it in the top 92% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 85/100 (rank #26), placing it in the top 91% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Qwen3.5-9B offers 91% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $3.00/month with Qwen3.5-9B vs $33.75/month with Seed-2.0-Lite - a $30.75 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Qwen3.5-9B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (262K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.15/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (85/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Seed-2.0-Lite and Qwen3.5-9B are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Seed-2.0-Lite
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Qwen3.5-9B
91% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Seed-2.0-Lite
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Seed-2.0-Lite
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Seed-2.0-Lite
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by ByteDance
| Capability | Seed-2.0-Lite | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
ByteDance
Alibaba
Qwen3.5-9B saves you $2.58/month
That's 91% cheaper than Seed-2.0-Lite at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Seed-2.0-Lite | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 262K | 256K |
| Max Output Tokens | 131,072 | 65,536 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Mar 10, 2026 | Mar 10, 2026 |
Both Seed-2.0-Lite and Qwen3.5-9B score 85/100, making them extremely close competitors. Choose based on pricing, provider ecosystem, or specific capability requirements.
Seed-2.0-Lite is ranked #25 and Qwen3.5-9B is ranked #26 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.15/M output tokens vs Seed-2.0-Lite's $2.00/M output tokens - 13.3x more expensive. Input token pricing: Seed-2.0-Lite at $0.25/M vs Qwen3.5-9B at $0.05/M.
Seed-2.0-Lite has a larger context window of 262,144 tokens compared to Qwen3.5-9B's 256,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.