Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs GLM-5
Which one, when
Dola-Seed-2.0-pro is the more multimodal of the two - text, image and video in - and the cheaper side on every line: $0.5 per million input against glm-5's $1, about 2x less, $3 output against $3.2, about 1.1x less, and cache reads of $0.1 against $0.2, with a slightly larger 256000-token window against 200000. Pick glm-5 for text-only agentic work where its explicit reasoning and long-context flags matter. Otherwise they line up closely: same 131072 max output, both chat, code, reasoning and tools, both able to turn thinking off.
Benchmarks
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $1 | 0.5× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $3 | $3.2 | 0.94× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $0.2 | 0.5× |
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 64 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | not published |
Specs
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | GLM-5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image video | text |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-02-14 | 2026-02-12 |
| Context window | 256K | 200K |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Thinking parameter |
| thinking.type |
| Accepted values | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| thinking.type
|
| Default | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on | enabled, and on GLM-5 the model automatically determines whether to think |
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 · GLM-5
One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway
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
GLM-5 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning forces the model to perform multiple hidden steps to "think" through a problem, drastically increasing the volume of data processed per query compared to a standard response. Because our billing is directly tied to this processing volume, the additional computational work required for higher accuracy has proportionally doubled our consumption. Essentially, the spike reflects a trade-off where we are paying a higher variable cost to secure significantly better analytical outcomes.
out 1393 tok (+1308 thinking) latency 36.0 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
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
GLM-5 passed · 8/8 cases
Here is the fixed code: ```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:** The bug stems from initializing `best` and `cur` to zero, which causes the function to count the number of *transitions* between adjacent elements rather than the total number of items in the run, resulting in a return value that is always one less than the actual length (reporting 0 for a single element and 1 for a pair). By initializing the counters to 1 and resetting `cur` to 1 when a streak breaks, the logic correctly counts the items themselves; adding an explicit check for an empty list ensures the function handles the zero-element edge case correctly.
out 2907 tok (+2694 thinking) latency 73.7 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
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
GLM-5 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" } ```
out 3620 tok (+3561 thinking) latency 91.8 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
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
GLM-5 passed · 119 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are thrilled to introduce Global Prompt Caching, a powerful new capability within our API gateway designed to optimize your AI operations. By intelligently storing prompt responses across every supported provider, this feature drastically reduces latency and cuts operational costs. Instead of processing identical requests repeatedly, our system serves cached results instantly, ensuring consistent performance even during high-traffic periods. Why pay full price for repeated inference on the same inputs? This update gives developers fine-grained control over cache lifetimes and hit rates, allowing for predictable budgeting and faster application response times. You can activate this functionality directly in your dashboard settings today. Start maximizing your efficiency now and deliver a snappier experience to your end-users without unnecessary API expenditure.
out 715 tok (+571 thinking) latency 18.9 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="glm-5", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "Dola-Seed-2.0-pro",
// model: "glm-5", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "Dola-Seed-2.0-pro",
# "model": "glm-5", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "Dola-Seed-2.0-pro",
// Model: "glm-5", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("Dola-Seed-2.0-pro")
// .model("glm-5") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, Dola Seed 2.0 Pro or GLM-5?
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.5 vs $1, 2.0× 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 GLM-5 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 GLM-5 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.