Seed-2.0-Code vs Solar Pro 4: which should you choose in 2026?
Seed-2.0-Code (by ByteDance) and Solar Pro 4 (by Upstage) 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.
Solar Pro 4 has the larger context window (524,288 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Choose Seed-2.0-Code if…
- • you need image inputs
Choose Solar Pro 4 if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
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 | Solar Pro 4 |
|---|---|---|
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 | — | 1378 ±12 |
Human preference score for code and web development | — | 1373 ±17 |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Aug 12, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Seed-2.0-Code | Solar Pro 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | ByteDance | Upstage |
| API provider | ByteDance Seed | Upstage |
| Input context | 262,144 tokens | 524,288 tokens |
| Maximum output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Jul 30, 2026 | Aug 10, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, Video | Text |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | No |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Base input (per 1M tokens) | $0.50 | $0.03 |
| Base output (per 1M tokens) | $3.00 | $0.12 |
| 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 10, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Seed-2.0-Code from ByteDance with Solar Pro 4 from Upstage? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Seed-2.0-Code | Solar Pro 4 | 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 Solar Pro 4 FAQ
Which is better, Seed-2.0-Code or Solar Pro 4?
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. Solar Pro 4 has the larger context window (524,288 tokens vs 262,144 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?
Solar Pro 4 has the larger context window (524,288 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Can I switch between Seed-2.0-Code and Solar Pro 4?
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
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 is a reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex agentic tasks.
Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship model in Alibaba's Qwen3.8 series, the general-availability successor to the Qwen3.8 Max Preview.
More Solar Pro 4 comparisons
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
NVIDIA
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is an open mixture-of-experts model from NVIDIA, with 3B active parameters out of 30B total.
Sakana Namazu
Sakana AI
Sakana Namazu is a Japanese-specialized reasoning model from Sakana AI, based on Kimi K2.6 with additional training for Japanese language and business contexts.
Muse Glimmer 30B
Meta
Muse Glimmer 30B is a dense, open-weight multimodal model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, distilled from Muse Spark and optimized for autonomous agents on consumer hardware.
Muse Spark 1.2
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 is a reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex agentic tasks.
Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship model in Alibaba's Qwen3.8 series, the general-availability successor to the Qwen3.8 Max Preview.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is a sparse mixture-of-experts model from DeepSeek, with 13B active parameters out of 284B total.