Skip to content

Seed 1.6 vs Seed 1.6 Flash

Seed 1.6

ByteDance

40#298
vs
Seed 1.6 Flash

ByteDance

40#297
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalSeed 1.6DeltaSeed 1.6 Flash
Capabilities
83
--
83
Pricing
98
-2
100
Context window size
86
--
86
Recency
91
--
91
Output Capacity
75
--
75
Overall Result
0 wins
of 5
1 wins
Seed 1.6 Flash wins 1 of 5 signals

Score History

Score History (25 data points)
Seed 1.6Seed 1.6 Flash
Seed 1.6

40

current score

Leader

Tied

right now

Seed 1.6 Flash

40

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Seed 1.6

ByteDance

Per request$0.001250
Daily$4.17
Monthly$125.00
Annual$1500.00

Seed 1.6 Flash

ByteDance

Best Value
Per request$0.000225
Daily$0.75
Monthly$22.50
Annual$270.00

Seed 1.6 Flash saves you $102.50/month

That's $1230.00/year compared to Seed 1.6 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

82% cheaper
Choose Seed 1.6 Flash for cost optimization

Seed 1.6 pricing:
Input:$0.25/M tokens
Output:$2.00/M tokens
Seed 1.6 Flash pricing:
Input:$0.07/M tokens
Output:$0.30/M tokens
Tie
Seed 1.6

ByteDance

40

Composite Score

Tie
Seed 1.6 Flash

ByteDance

40

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricSeed 1.6Seed 1.6 FlashWinner
Overall Score
40
40
--
Rank#298#297
Seed 1.6 Flash
Quality Rank#298#297
Seed 1.6 Flash
Adoption Rank#298#297
Seed 1.6 Flash
Parameters------
Context Window262K262K--
Pricing$0.25/$2.00/M$0.07/$0.30/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
83
83
Seed 1.6
Pricing
98
100
Seed 1.6 Flash
Context window size
86
86
Seed 1.6
Recency
91
91
Seed 1.6
Output Capacity
75
75
Seed 1.6
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

Seed 1.6Entry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #298), placing it in the top -2% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
Seed 1.6 FlashEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #297), placing it in the top -2% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

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.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Seed 1.6 when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving

Choose Seed 1.6 Flash when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Cost-Performance Analysis
Seed 1.6
Input cost$0.25/M tokens
Output cost$2.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.056
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$33.75
Seed 1.6 FlashBest Value
Input cost$0.07/M tokens
Output cost$0.30/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.009
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$5.63

Seed 1.6 Flash offers 83% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $5.63/month with Seed 1.6 Flash vs $33.75/month with Seed 1.6 - a $28.13 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Seed 1.6Faster
Speed score0/100
Seed 1.6 Flash
Speed score0/100

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.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Seed 1.6

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Seed 1.6 Flash also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Seed 1.6

Long document analysis

Larger context window (262K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Seed 1.6

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($0.30/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Seed 1.6 Flash

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Seed 1.6

Image understanding & OCR

Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly

Seed 1.6
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
Seed 1.6

Seed 1.6 and Seed 1.6 Flash 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.

Seed 1.6
Recommended

by ByteDance

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale

by ByteDance

  • Choose for Cost - 83% lower pricing; better value at scale
Capability Comparison
CapabilitySeed 1.6Seed 1.6 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Seed 1.6

ByteDance

$2.85
estimated monthly cost

Seed 1.6 Flash

ByteDance

Best Value
$0.4950
estimated monthly cost

Seed 1.6 Flash saves you $2.35/month

That's 83% cheaper than Seed 1.6 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.

Parameters & Context
ParameterSeed 1.6Seed 1.6 Flash
Context Window262K262K
Max Output Tokens32,76832,768
Open SourceNoNo
CreatedDec 23, 2025Dec 23, 2025
Last updated: 34m ago

Related comparisons

Seed 1.6 vs Seed 1.6 Flash (2026) | LM Market Cap