// head_to_head
Seed-2.0-Code vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.
Seed-2.0-Code does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
bytedance-seed
Seed-2.0-Code
- Blended / 1M
- $1.13
- Context
- 262K
- Released
- Aug 12, 2026
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
deepseek
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
- Blended / 1M
- $0.262
- Context
- 1.0M
- Released
- Oct 17, 2026
- Overall score
- 74.0
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Seed-2.0-Code | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | — | 74.0 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | — | $0.0018 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $1.13 | $0.262win |
| Input price / 1M | $0.500 | $0.150win |
| Output price / 1M | $3.00 | $0.600win |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | — | $0.0030 |
| Context window | 262K | 1.0Mwin |
| Max output tokens | 131K | 393Kwin |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Seed-2.0-Code on top, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | Seed-2.0-Code | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $360.00/mo | $73.42/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $580.00/mo | $97.20/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $640.00/mo | $85.68/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $725.00/mo | $187.65/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $1,550/mo | $361.50/mo |
Which should you pick?
You need to fit large documents in one call
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Wider context window — 1.0M against 262K.
Seed-2.0-Code vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 FAQ
Which is better, Seed-2.0-Code or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Seed-2.0-Code does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is Seed-2.0-Code cheaper than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Seed-2.0-Code lists at $1.13 per million tokens and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 at $0.262 — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is 4.3× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Seed-2.0-Code charges $0.500 in and $3.00 out, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 charges $0.150 and $0.600 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Does Seed-2.0-Code or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 have a bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the larger context window: 262K for Seed-2.0-Code against 1.0M for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.
Do Seed-2.0-Code and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 support prompt caching?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 publishes a cached-input rate of $0.0030 per million tokens against a full input rate of $0.150. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Seed-2.0-Code, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.