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

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite vs Dola Seed 2.0 Pro

vs

Which one, when — curated verdict, not a benchmark table

Both Dola-Seed-2.0-lite and Dola-Seed-2.0-pro landed 2026-02-14 with the same 256000-token context, 131072 max output, chat/code/tools, and the option to disable thinking, so the split is price and inputs. Pick Dola-Seed-2.0-lite when cost or audio matters: it takes text, image, video and audio, and costs half as much on input ($0.25 vs $0.50) and cache reads ($0.05 vs $0.10), with output $2 against $3. Pick Dola-Seed-2.0-pro when you want its reasoning capability flag and your inputs are only text, image or video.

Pricing

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Dola Seed 2.0 Pro Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.5 0.5×
Output / 1M tokens $2 $3 0.67×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.05 $0.1 0.5×

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 63 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Capabilities

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Dola Seed 2.0 Pro
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable configurable
Structured output yes
Prompt caching implicit + explicit implicit + explicit
Cache lifetime not published not published
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens 1024 tokens

Specs

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Dola Seed 2.0 Pro
Input modalities text image audio video text image video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-02-14 2026-02-14
Context window 256K 256K
Max output 131K 131K
Thinking parameter
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
Accepted values
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled (no auto)
reasoning_effort
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled (no auto)
reasoning_effort
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
Default enabled, with reasoning_effort medium enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on

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 · Dola Seed 2.0 Pro

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

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro passed · 3 sentences

Reasoning-enabled LLMs do not generate final answers in one pass: they run hundreds of unshown internal trial, cross-check, and correction steps for every user request, and every one of these hidden steps consumes billable GPU time just like the visible output text. Unlike our prior standard chat workload which only processed exactly what users typed, reasoning mode automatically executes these validation loops by default, with no visible indicator to end users that extra compute is being consumed. This 2x increase is not a billing error or rogue usage spike: industry benchmarks consistently put reasoning workloads at 1.7-2.6x the compute cost of equivalent standard LLM requests, and this pricing dynamic is almost never clearly disclosed on vendor rate cards.

out 563 tok (+416 thinking) latency 9.4 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

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro passed · 8/8 cases

### Corrected Implementation ```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 ``` --- ### Bug Explanation The original code has three critical linked flaws: 1. It initialized run counters `best` and `cur` to `0` instead of `1`, failing to account for the fact that *every individual element is already a valid run of length 1* -- this causes single-element inputs to incorrectly return `0`. 2. `cur` only counted how many extra matching elements followed the start of a run, so it always tracked one less than the actual run length, and it reset to `0` (instead of `1`) when a new run began, preserving this off-by-one error for all runs. 3. […]

out 1278 tok (+951 thinking) latency 16.7 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

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }

out 506 tok (+452 thinking) latency 8.6 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

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro passed · 123 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we’re rolling out cross-provider prompt caching for our API gateway. For engineering teams routing LLM requests across OpenAI, Anthropic, Mistral and open source models, this feature stores identical prompt payloads at the gateway layer, rather than relying on per-provider cache implementations limited to single endpoints. How much time and compute could your team save by avoiding redundant token processing for repeated system prompts, context windows, or common user queries? Cache hits return responses in under 10ms, with configurable TTL, granular purge controls, and per-application cache partitioning. Early access teams running support bots, batch inference and internal assistants recorded 42-67% lower LLM spend. This feature is live for all gateway users today, with no required code changes to existing routing workflows. (120 words)

out 1041 tok (+872 thinking) latency 11.4 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="Dola-Seed-2.0-pro",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get an API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Dola Seed 2.0 Lite or Dola Seed 2.0 Pro?

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.25 vs $0.5, 2.0× 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 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 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 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 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