Model Comparison
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba, ByteDance Seed
Recommended Pick
By Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct 15 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
100.0 value score
55.3 reasoning / $0.30/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
$0.18/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
55.3 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
16.7 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) is 1.2x cheaper on input tokens than Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct.
Speed gap
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) generates about 2.3x as many tokens per second as Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct.
Reasoning gap
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct leads Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) by 24.6 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct leads Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) by 9.6 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
ByteDance Seed
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick By Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.18/1M | $0.21/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.20/1M | $0.57/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.18/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | ByteDance Seed |
| Release Date | Apr 28, 2025 | Aug 20, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 64.3 tok/s | 28.4 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1298ms | 1574ms |
| Latency | 1298ms | 71976ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 89.9 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 30.6 | 55.3 |
| Intelligence | 10.6 | 25.2 |
| Coding | 7.1 | 16.7 |
| Math | 24.3 | 84.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 45.2% | 72.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 64.3% | 81.5% |
| HLE | 2.8% | 9.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 20.2% | 76.5% |
| MATH 500 | 82.8% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 24.3% | 84.7% |
| AIME (Original) | 24.3% | — |
| SciCode | 16.8% | 36.5% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 57.7% |
| IFBench | 28.6% | 41.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 24.9% | 49.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 2.3% | 6.8% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.18/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct has the strongest reasoning profile with a 55.3 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct reaches a 16.7 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
