Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Bytedance-seed
Bytedance-seed
vs
Qwen
Qwen

Seed 1.6 Flash vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Seed 1.6 Flash wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Supports vision
  • Has reasoning mode

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
Price Advantage
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Context Window
Seed 1.6 Flash
Speed
N/A

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureSeed 1.6 FlashQwen2.5 7B Instruct
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertySeed 1.6 FlashQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorBytedance-seedQwen
ReleasedDec 2025Oct 2024

Seed 1.6 Flash Modalities

Input
imagetextvideo
Output
text

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Seed 1.6 Flash with:

Compare Qwen2.5 7B Instruct with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has cheaper input pricing at $0.04/M tokens. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.10/M tokens.
Seed 1.6 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of N/A, compared to Qwen2.5 7B Instruct's score of N/A.
Seed 1.6 Flash has a 262,144 token context window, while Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has a 32,768 token context window.
Seed 1.6 Flash supports vision. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct does not support vision.