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

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs GPT-6 Luna

vs

Which one, when

Pick Dola-Seed-2.0-pro when your inputs include video, which is the one modality gpt-6-luna cannot take, and when you want its 131072-token max output over Luna's 128000. Otherwise gpt-6-luna is the cheaper and roomier default: $0.1 input and $0.5 output per million against $0.5 and $3, so 5x less on input and 6x less on output, with $0.01 cache reads instead of $0.1 and a 1050000-token context versus 256000. Both are text-out models with chat, code, reasoning and tools, and both let you turn thinking off, so the decision really rests on video input versus price and context.

Benchmarks

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

Above averageGPT-6 Lunaonly 1 comparable
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro GPT-6 Luna other models measured peer average no peer scored higher
DeepSWE 1.1
N/A
66.6%

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic DeepSeek Google OpenAI Z.ai

Pricing

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro GPT-6 Luna Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.5 $0.1
Output / 1M tokens $3 $0.5
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.1 $0.01 10×
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 74 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro · $0.5 GPT-6 Luna · $0.1
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro GPT-6 Luna
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable configurable
Structured output - yes
Prompt caching implicit + explicit implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime not published 5-10m, up to 1h
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens 1024 tokens

Specs

Dola Seed 2.0 Pro GPT-6 Luna
Input modalities text image video text image
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-02-14 2026-09-22
Knowledge cutoff - 2026-05
Context window 256K 1.1M
Max output 131K 128K
Thinking parameter
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
reasoning.effort
Accepted values
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled (no auto)
reasoning_effort
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
reasoning.effort
  • none
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
Default enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on medium

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 · GPT-6 Luna

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

GPT-6 Luna passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning typically makes the model process more information and generate more internal tokens before producing its answer. Because usage is billed by tokens—and reasoning may also route requests to a more expensive model—the cost per request can rise sharply. If request volume stayed similar, that higher cost per request could explain why the bill doubled.

out 117 tok (+48 thinking) latency 3.4 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

GPT-6 Luna passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 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 original code counted matching *adjacent pairs* rather than items, so a run of length `n` was reported as `n - 1`, and a single-item input returned `0`. This version counts the current item as part of each run and updates `best` at every index, including the last; it returns `0` for an empty input.

out 514 tok (+356 thinking) latency 6.9 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

GPT-6 Luna passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"

{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":null,"guidance":"Withheld pending the Q4 close"}

out 161 tok (+119 thinking) latency 21.7 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

GPT-6 Luna passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that recognizes repeat prompt prefixes and reuses provider-side cached context across supported models. Teams can route requests to different AI providers while preserving eligible cache hits, reducing redundant input processing and helping lower latency and token costs. Configure cache policies in one place, monitor hit rates by provider, and keep existing client integrations unchanged. The gateway applies provider-specific rules automatically, so developers do not need to build separate caching logic for each endpoint. Which workflows could benefit from faster responses and predictable spend? Prompt Cache is available today in preview for eligible accounts, with usage details, supported providers, and setup guidance in the dashboard. Start with one route, compare results, then expand.

out 959 tok (+813 thinking) latency 14.6 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="gpt-6-luna",  # 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 GPT-6 Luna?

GPT-6 Luna is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.1 vs $0.5, 5.0× 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 GPT-6 Luna 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 GPT-6 Luna 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