Model Comparison
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning)
vs. Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Alibaba, ByteDance Seed
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) 14 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, TTFT, Latency
Best Value
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
100.0 value score
55.3 reasoning / $0.30/1M
Lowest Price
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
$0.21/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning)
56.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning)
19.5 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
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct is 2.4x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) generates about 6.3x as many tokens per second as Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct.
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) leads Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct by 1.3 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) leads Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct by 2.8 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (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 | Top Pick Al Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) | By Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.50/1M | $0.21/1M |
| Output Cost | $6.00/1M | $0.57/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.88/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | ByteDance Seed |
| Release Date | Sep 11, 2025 | Aug 20, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 179.6 tok/s | 28.4 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1193ms | 1574ms |
| Latency | 12329ms | 71976ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 16.4 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 56.6 | 55.3 |
| Intelligence | 26.7 | 25.2 |
| Coding | 19.5 | 16.7 |
| Math | 84.3 | 84.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 75.9% | 72.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 82.4% | 81.5% |
| HLE | 11.7% | 9.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 78.4% | 76.5% |
| AIME 2025 | 84.3% | 84.7% |
| SciCode | 38.8% | 36.5% |
| LCR | 60.3% | 57.7% |
| IFBench | 60.7% | 41.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 41.5% | 49.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 9.8% | 6.8% |
Key Takeaways
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct offers the best value at $0.21/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 56.6 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) reaches a 19.5 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 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
