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

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813)

vs

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

Both cover chat, code, reasoning and tools, so the split is context versus price and inputs: Dola-Seed-2.0-pro takes text, image and video at $0.5 input and $3 output with a 256000-token window, and it lets you turn thinking off. deepseek-v4-pro-0813 is text-only and costs 2.64x more on input and 1.32x more on output ($1.32 and $3.96), but buys a 1000000-token window and 393216 max output tokens — exactly 3x Dola's 131072. Pick the ByteDance model for cheaper multimodal work with toggleable reasoning, the DeepSeek model when whole-repo or long-document prompts and very long replies matter.

Pricing

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.5 $1.32 0.38×
Output / 1M tokens $3 $3.96 0.76×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.1 $0.132 0.76×
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 Pro (0813)
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable always on
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 Pro (0813)
Input modalities text image video text
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-02-14 2026-08-13
Context window 256K 1M
Max output 131K 393K
Thinking parameter
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
reasoning_effort
Accepted values
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled (no auto)
reasoning_effort
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
reasoning_effort
  • the model card documents low
  • high
  • max
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 Pro (0813)

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 Pro (0813) passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate a hidden chain-of-thought with many additional tokens before producing the final answer, which sharply increases compute consumption per request. Those extra reasoning tokens are billed at the same or higher rates, so total usage doubled even though the volume of final outputs stayed similar. We can control this by adjusting reasoning effort, setting token limits, or routing only complex requests through reasoning mode.

out 308 tok (+226 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 Pro (0813) 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 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` was initialized to `0` and only counted adjacent matching pairs, so a run of length `n` produced `n - 1` (or `0` for a single element) instead of `n`. The code also reset to `0` on a change, when the new run should start at length `1`. Initializing `cur` and `best` to `1` fixes both the single-element case and runs ending at the last index.

out 1315 tok (+1130 thinking) latency 16.9 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 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 Pro (0813) passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11.0,"guidance":null}

out 2155 tok (+2121 thinking) latency 26.0 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 Pro (0813) passed · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing cross-provider prompt caching in our API gateway. Send a prompt once, and the gateway stores its computed prefix across Anthropic, OpenAI, and other LLM providers. Subsequent requests with the same prompt hit the cache, cutting latency and token costs while keeping outputs consistent across routing decisions and provider failovers. Teams can route identical prompts between providers without reprocessing shared context or lengthy system instructions. How much could you save on repeated prompt prefixes? The cache respects provider-specific key formats, handles TTLs automatically, and works with streaming and batch requests. Enable it with one configuration flag—no changes to your application code. Available today on all plans. Monitor cache hit rates, token savings, and provider-specific performance metrics in the live dashboard.

out 2845 tok (+2694 thinking) latency 25.5 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-pro",
    # model="deepseek-v4-pro-0813",  # 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 Pro (0813)?

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.5 vs $1.32, 2.6× 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 Pro (0813) 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 Pro (0813) 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