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

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite vs Claude Opus 5.5

vs

Which one, when

Dola-Seed-2.0-lite is the cheaper, broader-input option at $0.25 in and $2 out per million tokens, accepting text, image, video and audio, with a 256000-token window and the ability to turn thinking off. claude-opus-5-5 costs 16x more on input ($4) and 10x more on output ($20), and takes only text and image, but it offers a 1000000-token context plus explicit thinking and reasoning flags that cannot be disabled. Pick the Dola model for high-volume or multimodal ingestion work where you want control over deliberation, and claude-opus-5-5 when you need very long contexts and always-on reasoning.

Benchmarks

Above averageNo peer higherDola Seed 2.0 Lite4 / 103 / 10Claude Opus 5.59 / 97 / 9
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Claude Opus 5.5 other models measured peer average no peer scored higher
Terminal-bench 4.0
N/A
no peer scored higher 66.4%
WenetSpeech test-net (CER)
no peer scored higher 4.47%
N/A
OSWorld-Verified
64.4%
N/A
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
N/A
58.7%
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 Opus 5.5 Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.25 $4 0.063×
Output / 1M tokens $2 $20 0.1×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.05 $0.2 0.25×
Cache write - 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) -

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

Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 74 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Capabilities

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Claude Opus 5.5
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable always on
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 Opus 5.5
Input modalities text image audio video text image
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-02-14 2026-09-22
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 Opus 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 Opus 5.5 passed · 3 sentences

When we turned on reasoning, the model began "thinking out loud" before each answer, generating thousands of internal working tokens that users never see but that we are billed for just like the final response. Those hidden tokens are charged at the output rate, typically the most expensive rate, so the same question with the same visible answer now costs roughly twice as much or more. We can bring the bill back down without losing the quality gains by capping the reasoning budget and reserving reasoning mode for the complex tasks that actually benefit from it.

out 263 tok (+102 thinking) latency 5.7 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences - 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 Opus 5.5 passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **Explanation:** The original code counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *items in a run*. Both `cur` and `best` started at 0, and `cur` reset to 0 on a mismatch, so a run of length *n* was reported as *n − 1*. For a single-element list the loop never executes, so it returned 0 instead of 1. For `[5, 5]` it returned 1 instead of 2. The fix treats every element as the start of a run of length 1: `best` and `cur` start at 1, and `cur` resets to 1 (not 0) when the value changes. An explicit check returns 0 for an empty list. The "misses runs at the last index" reports are the same off-by-one bug rather than a separate one. […]

out 723 tok (+303 thinking) latency 10.4 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 Opus 5.5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` **Judgment calls to check:** - **quarter**: Kept as "September quarter" rather than "Q3", since the fiscal calendar isn't stated. The text mentions an upcoming "Q4 close," so it may be fiscal Q3, but that's not certain. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text says only "412 for the topline." It doesn't state currency or units, and the figure is on a constant-currency basis, not reported USD. USD millions is an assumption. Use `null` if you need strictly stated values. - **growth_pct**: The source says "eleven and change," so the true figure is slightly above 11. 11 is an approximation. - **guidance**: Guidance was explicitly withheld. I recorded that rather than `null`, since the text addresses it directly.

out 829 tok (+488 thinking) latency 10.9 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 Opus 5.5 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for our API gateway. Why pay twice for the same context? Our gateway now stores repeated prompt prefixes, system instructions, and document chunks, then reuses them whether your request goes to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or an open-source model. Teams running retrieval pipelines or long agent loops can cut token costs by up to 60 percent and trim latency on every cached call. Setup takes one configuration flag; no code changes are required. Cache rules respect tenant boundaries, expire on your schedule, and log every hit for audit review. Dashboards show savings by provider, route, and application in real time. Cross-Provider Prompt Caching is available on all Pro and Enterprise plans. Turn it on today.

out 1263 tok (+1007 thinking) latency 13.5 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-opus-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 Opus 5.5?

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.25 vs $4, 16× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.

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

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

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

Yes - both bill cached 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