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

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite vs MiniMax M3

vs

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

Pick Dola-Seed-2.0-lite if you need audio input — it accepts text, image, video and audio, where minimax-m3 stops at video — and its $0.25 input slightly undercuts $0.3. Choose minimax-m3 for long or output-heavy work: a 1000000-token context and 524288 max output, roughly 3.9x and 4x Dola-Seed-2.0-lite's 256000 and 131072, plus reasoning and long-context flags and $1.2 output against $2. Cache reads are near-identical at $0.05 versus $0.06, and both let you disable thinking.

Pricing

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite MiniMax M3 Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.3 0.83×
Output / 1M tokens $2 $1.2 1.7×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.05 $0.06 0.83×
Cache write no separate charge

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)

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite · $0.25 MiniMax M3 · $0.3
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite MiniMax M3
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable configurable
Structured output yes
Prompt caching implicit + explicit implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime not published not published
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens 512 tokens

Specs

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite MiniMax M3
Input modalities text image audio video text image video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-02-14 2026-06-01
Context window 256K 1M
Max output 131K 524K
Thinking parameter
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_split
Accepted values
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled (no auto)
reasoning_effort
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
thinking.type
  • adaptive
  • disabled
reasoning_split
  • boolean
Default enabled, with reasoning_effort medium adaptive: thinking on, with the model deciding when extra reasoning helps

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 · MiniMax M3

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

MiniMax M3 passed · 3 sentences

Reasoning-enabled models deliberately produce extensive internal "chain-of-thought" tokens before answering, often consuming 5–10x more tokens per query than a standard model. Because LLM providers bill per token for both that reasoning trace and the final response, your cost-per-query rises proportionally—and that multiplier is the primary driver of the doubled bill. The right response isn't to disable reasoning, but to route only genuinely complex queries to it while keeping routine traffic on the cheaper standard tier, which typically recovers 60–80% of the cost without sacrificing quality where it matters.

out 665 tok (+548 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

MiniMax M3 passed · 8/8 cases

The bug is in the loop bound: `range(1, len(xs))` iterates from index 1 up to but not including `len(xs) - 1`... wait, actually it goes up to `len(xs) - 1`, so the last index is included. The real problems are two: 1. **Starting `best` and `cur` at 0** and iterating from index 1 means a single-element list (`len(xs) == 1`) never enters the loop, so the function returns `0` instead of `1`. The fix is to either seed `best = cur = 1` when `xs` is non-empty, or include index 0 in the loop logic. 2. **Missing the final run**: the function only updates `best` *inside* the loop when it finds a continuation. If the longest run ends at the very last element, the loop body never gets to compare it after the increment — actually it does, but only if the run is longer than the previous `best`. […]

out 464 tok latency 7.9 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

MiniMax M3 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

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

out 2212 tok (+2161 thinking) latency 23.3 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

MiniMax M3 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing PromptCache, our new API gateway feature that caches prompts across multiple LLM providers. Developers can store prompt-completion pairs centrally, reducing redundant inference calls and lowering costs without sacrificing quality. How will your workflow change when repeated requests resolve instantly from a shared cache layer? The gateway intercepts outgoing requests, checks for matching prompt fingerprints, and serves previously generated completions when available, falling back to the original provider on misses. Compatible with OpenAI, Anthropic, Cohere, and custom endpoints, PromptCache integrates with existing routing rules and supports TTL, versioning, and per-tenant namespaces. Teams now gain predictable latency, reduced token spend, and improved throughput during traffic spikes today. […]

out 3256 tok (+2892 thinking) latency 21.5 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="minimax-m3",  # 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 MiniMax M3?

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.25 vs $0.3, 1.2× 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 MiniMax M3 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 MiniMax M3 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