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

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite vs GLM-5.3-Flash

vs

Which one, when

Pick Dola-Seed-2.0-lite when your inputs include audio, since it is the only one of the two that accepts audio alongside text, image and video, and when you want the option to turn thinking off. Choose glm-5.3-flash for long documents and high-volume work: it takes a 1000000-token context against 256000, and at $0.15 input and $0.5 output it costs less per token than Dola-Seed-2.0-lite's $0.25 and $2, four times cheaper on output. Both cap output above 131072 tokens and both handle chat, code and tools, so the real split is audio and optional thinking versus context and price.

Benchmarks

Above averageNo peer higherDola Seed 2.0 Lite4 / 103 / 10GLM-5.3-Flash5 / 61 / 6
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite GLM-5.3-Flash other models measured peer average no peer scored higher
Terminal-Bench 2.1
N/A
84.3%
WenetSpeech test-net (CER)
no peer scored higher 4.47%
N/A
OSWorld-Verified
64.4%
N/A
GDPval-AA v2 Elo · 1504-1773 per Z.ai · 2026-09-04
N/A
no peer scored higher 1773
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 GLM-5.3-Flash Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.15 1.7×
Output / 1M tokens $2 $0.5
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.05 $0.03 1.7×

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 67 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite · $0.25 GLM-5.3-Flash · $0.15
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite GLM-5.3-Flash
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable always on
Structured output yes yes
Prompt caching implicit + explicit implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime not published not published
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens not published

Specs

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite GLM-5.3-Flash
Input modalities text image audio video text image video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-02-14 -
Context window 256K 1M
Max output 131K 164K
Thinking parameter
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
reasoning_effort
Accepted values
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled (no auto)
reasoning_effort
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
reasoning_effort
  • low
  • high
  • max
Default enabled, with reasoning_effort medium max

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 · GLM-5.3-Flash

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

GLM-5.3-Flash passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning means the model now generates thousands of invisible "thinking" tokens before each visible answer, and we're billed for those hidden tokens at full output rates—our most expensive tier. Since output tokens cost 3–5x more than input tokens, that hidden thinking volume compounds across every request, which is why the bill doubled rather than edged up. If the spend concerns you, the fix is straightforward: route only complex queries to reasoning models and keep simple tasks on standard ones, which can reclaim a meaningful share of that cost without losing accuracy where it matters.

out 742 tok (+626 thinking) latency 23.2 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

GLM-5.3-Flash 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 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **The bug:** `cur` is supposed to hold the length of the current run, but it's seeded with `0` and reset to `0` on a mismatch instead of `1` — and since the loop starts at index 1, the first element of every run never passes through the `==` branch and so never gets counted at all. That means `cur` actually holds *run length minus 1* for every run, so every run is underreported by one: a single-element input never enters the loop and returns 0 instead of 1, and a run of length n returns n − 1 (e.g., `[3, 3, 3]` returns 2). […]

out 2462 tok (+2138 thinking) latency 29.1 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

GLM-5.3-Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending the Q4 close" } ``` Notes on judgment calls: revenue of 412 is on a constant-currency basis as stated; growth of "eleven and change" is approximated as 11 since no precise figure is given.

out 717 tok (+616 thinking) latency 9.1 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

GLM-5.3-Flash passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, the newest feature in our API gateway. Today, teams send identical prompts to multiple LLM providers and pay full price each time. Why duplicate that work and cost? With Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, your gateway stores prompt-response pairs and serves repeated requests from cache, regardless of which provider handles the call. The result: lower latency, reduced spend, and consistent outputs across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and self-hosted models. Configure cache policies per route, set TTLs, and invalidate entries instantly through the dashboard or API. Built-in analytics show hit rates and savings in real time. Enable the cache with a single flag, no code changes required. Available today on all paid plans. Contact sales for enterprise volume pricing details.

out 2095 tok (+1937 thinking) latency 20.2 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="glm-5.3-flash",  # 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 GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.15 vs $0.25, 1.7× 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 GLM-5.3-Flash 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 GLM-5.3-Flash 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