New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite vs Claude Haiku 5.5

vs

Which one, when

For prompts up to 100000 tokens claude-haiku-5-5 is cheaper: $0.1 input and $0.5 output against $0.25 and $2 for Dola-Seed-2.0-lite. Above that, claude-haiku-5-5 bills at 5x, which puts it above Dola-Seed-2.0-lite until that model's own rates double past 128000 tokens. claude-haiku-5-5 has the larger context (1000000 against 256000) and cheaper cache reads ($0.01 against $0.05); Dola-Seed-2.0-lite accepts audio and video input. Pick claude-haiku-5-5 for short prompts and very long documents, and Dola-Seed-2.0-lite for audio or video.

Benchmarks

Claude Haiku 5.5: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.

Above averageNo peer higherDola Seed 2.0 Lite4 / 103 / 10
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Claude Haiku 5.5 other models measured peer average ★ no peer scored higher
SWE Multilingual GPT-5.4 High
66.6%
N/A
WenetSpeech test-net (CER)
no peer scored higher 4.47%
N/A
OSWorld-Verified
64.4%
N/A
GPQA Diamond
88.4%
N/A
BrowseComp
64%
N/A
MMVU
76.7%
N/A

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Claude Haiku 5.5 Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.1 2.5×
Output / 1M tokens $2 $0.5 4×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.05 $0.01 5×
Cache write - 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) -

Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.

Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 78 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Capabilities

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Claude Haiku 5.5
Tool calling yes yes
Thinking control configurable configurable
Structured output yes yes
Prompt caching implicit + explicit explicit (you mark the prefix)
Cache lifetime not published 5m default, 1h option
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens 1024 tokens

Specs

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Claude Haiku 5.5
Input modalities text image audio video text image
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-02-14 2026-10-07
Knowledge cutoff - 2026-06
Context window 256K 1M
Max output 131K 128K
Thinking parameter
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
output_config.effort
Accepted values
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled (no auto)
reasoning_effort
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
output_config.effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
Default enabled, with reasoning_effort medium medium

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Dola Seed 2.0 Lite · Claude Haiku 5.5

One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning on our production LLM requires the model to run resource-intensive multi-step chain-of-thought inference for every customer-facing query, rather than the single-pass inference that powered our original non-reasoning deployment, and GPU compute—which makes up 90% of our total LLM bill—scales directly with the number of compute cycles each query consumes. Our cloud provider’s LLM billing model charges per million processed tokens, and reasoning workflows generate an average of 2.1x more hidden processing tokens (the intermediate problem-solving steps the model never surfaces to end users) that are still billable, pushing our total monthly token consumption just over double what it was prior to enabling the feature. […]

out 1306 tok (+1096 thinking) latency 18.2 s

Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model generate a long internal chain of thought before its answer, and those thinking tokens are billed as output tokens, which cost several times more than input tokens. The model often produces many times more output per request than it did without reasoning, so the per-call cost rises even when the visible answer looks about the same length. Because that extra spend scales with every request, the bill roughly doubled, and we can control it by setting reasoning budgets, using reasoning only for tasks that need it, or routing simpler requests to a non-reasoning model.

out 332 tok (+159 thinking) latency 2.9 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite passed · 8/8 cases

### Corrected Function ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: # Handle empty input edge case return 0 best = cur = 1 # Base run length of 1 for any non-empty single element for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 # Reset run length for the new, different element return best ``` ### Bug Explanation (single paragraph) The original function’s core flaw was that it counted the number of consecutive equal adjacent element pairs, rather than the number of elements in the run itself, leading to all results being off by one, which caused both reported issues: a run of k equal elements only has k-1 consecutive matching pairs, so the original function’s maximum `best` value was always one less than the true element count of the longest run. […]

out 2620 tok (+2217 thinking) latency 33.2 s

Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` counts adjacent equal *pairs*, not run *elements*. A run of k equal items produces k−1 matching pairs, so the function returns one less than the true length, and a single-element input produces no pairs at all, so it returns 0 instead of 1. Resetting `cur` to 0 on a mismatch compounds this by starting every run one step behind. The fix starts both `cur` and `best` at 1 (a non-empty list always has a run of at least one element), resets `cur` to 1 on a mismatch, and updates `best` after every element rather than only inside the equal-branch. The empty-list guard keeps the function from returning 1 for `[]`. […]

out 1012 tok (+591 thinking) latency 6.0 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Formal guidance withheld pending Q4 clos"

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Formal guidance withheld pending Q4 close" }

out 1502 tok (+1439 thinking) latency 20.2 s

Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Formal guidance withheld pending the Q4 "

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Formal guidance withheld pending the Q4 close" } ``` Notes: The text gives revenue as 412 but doesn't state the currency, so I left `revenue_usd_m` as null. Growth is "eleven and change," so 11 is an approximation.

out 725 tok (+572 thinking) latency 4.6 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite missed · 141 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we launch Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, a new feature for our Core API Gateway built to cut redundant AI costs and latency for teams routing requests across multiple LLM providers. Many development teams rotate between OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google Gemini to balance performance, cost, and capability, but identical prompts get reprocessed from scratch with every provider switch, wasting tokens and slowing response times. This feature stores validated prompt responses at the gateway layer, so repeat requests pull from cache regardless of which provider they route to, with configurable TTLs and built-in compliance with all major provider data policies. […]

out 1870 tok (+1695 thinking) latency 23.1 s

Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

**Introducing Prompt Cache Sync, the newest feature in GatewayOne.** Teams routing requests across OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have often paid to process the same long system prompts again and again. Now the gateway stores those prompts once and reuses them wherever they appear, regardless of provider. Repeated context is matched by content hash, so cached prefixes return faster and cost less, with no changes to your application code. How much could this save your team? Enable Prompt Cache Sync from the dashboard, and your next billing report will show the difference. Cache entries follow your existing retention settings and can be purged per project at any time. Availability begins this week for all Scale and Enterprise plans worldwide. Start today.

out 2164 tok (+1929 thinking) latency 9.9 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="Dola-Seed-2.0-lite",
    # model="claude-haiku-5-5",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Dola Seed 2.0 Lite or Claude Haiku 5.5?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.1 vs $0.25, 2.5× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test Dola Seed 2.0 Lite against Claude Haiku 5.5 without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do Dola Seed 2.0 Lite and Claude Haiku 5.5 support prompt caching?

Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies