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

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

vs

Which one, when

Dola-Seed-2.0-pro is the cheaper of the two on the main token rates: $0.5 input versus $0.75 and $3 output versus $3.75, so 1.5x and 1.25x less respectively, and it allows 131072 output tokens, twice gemini-3.8-flash's 65536, plus a switch to disable thinking. Pick gemini-3.8-flash when you need its 1048576-token context (about 4x the 256000 of Dola-Seed-2.0-pro), audio input alongside text, image and video, or the lower $0.075 cache-read rate on long reused prompts. Both cover chat, code, reasoning and tools with text-only output.

Benchmarks

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.

Above averageNo peer higherGemini 3.8 Flash12 / 175 / 17
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro Gemini 3.8 Flash other models measured peer average no peer scored higher
DeepSWE 1.1
N/A
73.7%
BioMysteryBench hard
N/A
no peer scored higher 56.5%
OSWorld 2.0 Partial score, batch tool enabled
N/A
59%
HealthBench Professional
N/A
52.1%
Finance Agent v2
N/A
no peer scored higher 61.4%
Legal Agent Benchmark
N/A
10%
GPQA Diamond
N/A
95.3%
CharXiv (RQ) no tools
N/A
no peer scored higher 86.2%

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro Gemini 3.8 Flash Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.5 $0.75 0.67×
Output / 1M tokens $3 $3.75 0.8×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.1 $0.075 1.3×

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 71 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Capabilities

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro Gemini 3.8 Flash
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable yes - vendor dial not published
Structured output - yes
Prompt caching implicit + explicit implicit + explicit
Cache lifetime not published not published
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens 4096 tokens

Specs

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro Gemini 3.8 Flash
Input modalities text image video text image audio video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-02-14 2026-09-02
Knowledge cutoff - 2026-03
Context window 256K 1M
Max output 131K 66K
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 · Gemini 3.8 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 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

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 3 sentences

When we enabled reasoning, the model began generating hidden "thinking tokens" to work through logic step-by-step before producing a final answer. Because AI vendors bill for every single token processed—visible or not—this internal deliberation dramatically inflated our billable volume per query. In short, while our total number of user requests remained flat, the cost per transaction doubled to buy higher accuracy on complex tasks.

out 705 tok (+624 thinking) latency 6.4 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 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

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 8/8 cases

Here is the corrected function: ```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 ``` ### Explanation of the Bug The original function counted equal-neighbor transitions rather than the actual items making up each run. Because `cur` started at `0` (and was reset to `0` on mismatches), every run was undercounted by one: single-element lists returned `0` because the loop never executed, and any subsequent run—including those ending at the last index—recorded a count of $N - 1$ instead of $N$. The fix handles empty input upfront, initializes both `cur` and `best` to `1` (since any single element forms a run of length 1), and resets `cur` to `1` whenever a new run begins.

out 1393 tok (+1149 thinking) latency 10.1 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 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

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

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

out 3989 tok (+3932 thinking) latency 30.4 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

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Why pay multiple model providers for the exact same output? Introducing Universal Prompt Cache, our latest API gateway capability engineered to cut compute expenses and drop inference latency. When your application makes a call, the gateway inspects a central memory layer before routing traffic to external LLMs. If an identical query was previously processed by OpenAI, Anthropic, or Mistral, our gateway returns that response immediately. This shared cache eliminates duplicate token fees and insulates your production apps from vendor rate limits or unexpected downtime. Developers can easily customize expiration settings, enforce strict data privacy controls, and configure invalidation logic across every endpoint. Stop wasting your budget on repeated queries. Enable prompt caching in your dashboard to accelerate your pipeline today.

out 3833 tok (+3688 thinking) latency 21.8 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="gemini-3.8-flash",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Dola Seed 2.0 Pro or Gemini 3.8 Flash?

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.5 vs $0.75, 1.5× 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 Gemini 3.8 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 Pro and Gemini 3.8 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

From our measured studies