Seed-2.0-Code vs Gemma 3 4B: which should you choose in 2026?
Seed-2.0-Code (by ByteDance) and Gemma 3 4B (by Google) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Seed-2.0-Code has the larger context window (262,144 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).
Choose Seed-2.0-Code if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
Choose Gemma 3 4B if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Seed-2.0-Code | Gemma 3 4B |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score | — | 1303 ±9 |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Aug 23, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Seed-2.0-Code | Gemma 3 4B |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | ByteDance | |
| API provider | ByteDance Seed | |
| Input context | 262,144 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Maximum output | 131,072 tokens | 16,384 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Aug 12, 2026 | Mar 13, 2025 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 2024-08-31 |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, Video | Text, Image |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Base input (per 1M tokens) | $0.50 | $0.05 |
| Base output (per 1M tokens) | $3.00 | $0.10 |
| Higher-context pricing tiers |
| Base rate only |
| Price-comparison caveat | At least one model changes token rates above a prompt-token threshold. Base rates are shown, but an unconditional blended price ratio would not be like-for-like. | |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 12, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Seed-2.0-Code from ByteDance with Gemma 3 4B from Google? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Seed-2.0-Code | Gemma 3 4B | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Seed-2.0-Code vs Gemma 3 4B FAQ
Which is better, Seed-2.0-Code or Gemma 3 4B?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison. Seed-2.0-Code has the larger context window (262,144 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model supports more context?
Seed-2.0-Code has the larger context window (262,144 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).
Can I switch between Seed-2.0-Code and Gemma 3 4B?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Seed-2.0-Code comparisons
Kimi K2.7 Code
Moonshot AI
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code is a coding-focused model in Moonshot AI's Kimi K2 family, built to complete end-to-end programming tasks reliably over long contexts.
GPT-5.3-Codex
OpenAI
GPT-5.3-Codex is OpenAI’s most advanced agentic coding model, combining the frontier software engineering performance of GPT-5.2-Codex with the broader reasoning and professional knowledge capabilities of GPT-5.2.
GPT-5.2-Codex
OpenAI
GPT-5.2-Codex is an upgraded version of GPT-5.1-Codex optimized for software engineering and coding workflows.
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
OpenAI
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max is OpenAI’s latest agentic coding model, designed for long-running, high-context software development tasks.
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
Ox Alpha
Stealth
Ox Alpha is a reasoning model designed for coding, sustained agentic work, and production workloads.
More Gemma 3 4B comparisons
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp is a model by DeepSeek.
Ox Alpha
Stealth
Ox Alpha is a reasoning model designed for coding, sustained agentic work, and production workloads.
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen
Qwen3.8 27B is an open-weight dense vision-language model from Qwen.
Seed 2.1 Turbo
ByteDance
Seed 2.1 Turbo is a multimodal model from ByteDance Seed for coding and long-horizon agent workflows.
Grok 4.6
xAI
Grok 4.6 is SpaceXAI's smartest model with frontier performance on coding, knowledge work, and STEM.