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

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731)

vs

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

Pick Dola-Seed-2.0-pro when the input itself isn't text: it accepts image and video alongside text, and it lets you turn thinking off, at $0.5 per million input and $3 per million output. deepseek-v4-flash-0731 is text-only but cheaper on the same units — roughly 1.6x less on input and about 3.2x less on output, with cache reads at $0.0308 versus $0.1 — and it carries a 1000000-token context with up to 393216 output tokens against 256000 and 131072. Both cover chat, code, reasoning and tools, so the choice is really modalities versus context length and cost.

Pricing

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.5 $0.308 1.6×
Output / 1M tokens $3 $0.924 3.2×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.1 $0.0308 3.2×
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)

Capabilities

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731)
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable yes — vendor dial not published
Structured output yes
Prompt caching implicit + explicit implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime not published no fixed TTL (evicted when unused)
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens not published

Specs

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731)
Input modalities text image video text
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-02-14 2026-07-31
Context window 256K 1M
Max output 131K 393K
Thinking parameter
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
Accepted values
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled (no auto)
reasoning_effort
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
Default 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 Pro · DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731)

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 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

DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning mode prompts the model to generate extensive internal chain-of-thought tokens before answering, often multiplying total token output per query by several times. This directly inflates costs because we are billed per token, and these reasoning tokens are processed at a premium compute tier that carries a higher price per million tokens. However, this spend buys measurably higher accuracy and fewer failed calls, so we are tracking it against specific error-reduction KPIs to ensure the ROI justifies the increase.

out 365 tok (+266 thinking) latency 5.1 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 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

DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) 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 ``` The original bug stems from initializing `cur` to 0 and only incrementing it when adjacent elements are equal, which counts the number of *equal transitions* rather than the actual run length—so every run of length L is reported as L−1, and a single‑element run (with no transitions) yields 0. Moreover, because `best` is updated only inside the equality branch, it never accounts for a run that ends at the last element if that run is longer than any previously seen (though the real issue remains the off‑by‑one). […]

out 1268 tok (+1016 thinking) latency 14.0 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 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

DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": null }

out 1119 tok (+1072 thinking) latency 12.3 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 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

DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) missed · 141 words, 0 banned, 1 question

**Introducing Prompt Cache for API Gateway** We are pleased to announce Prompt Cache, a new feature that stores and reuses identical prompt prefixes across all connected LLM providers. By automatically recognizing repeated requests, this cache reduces token consumption and lowers latency without altering your application logic. Whether you use OpenAI, Anthropic, or open-source models, the cache operates transparently, ensuring consistent behavior while cutting costs. Developers can configure cache TTL and scoping rules via a simple API call, giving you precise control over data freshness and privacy. This feature also minimizes redundant upstream calls, freeing provider rate limits for more critical workloads. Start caching today through the dashboard or CLI, and watch your operational expenses drop significantly. […]

out 254 tok (+80 thinking) latency 4.4 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-pro",
    # model="deepseek-v4-flash-0731",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get an API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Dola Seed 2.0 Pro or DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731)?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.308 vs $0.5, 1.6× 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 Pro against DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) 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 Pro and DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) 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