Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
Cuál usar y cuándo
Dola-Seed-2.0-pro cuesta $0.5 por millón de tokens de entrada y $3 de salida frente a $4 y $20 de claude-opus-5-5, por lo que sus tarifas son 8x más bajas en entrada y aproximadamente 6.7x más bajas en salida, y es el único de los dos que acepta entrada de video y permite desactivar el pensamiento. Elija claude-opus-5-5 cuando necesite su contexto de 1,000,000 de tokens, aproximadamente 3.9x la ventana de 256,000 en Dola-Seed-2.0-pro, y pueda aceptar que el razonamiento esté siempre activado y una tarifa de lectura de caché 2x mayor ($0.2 frente a $0.1). Ambos facturan por token sin multiplicadores de descuento, por lo que la comparación de costos es directa.
Benchmarks
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro: el proveedor no ha publicado resultados de benchmarks.
Publicado por los proveedores: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic DeepSeek Google Moonshot OpenAI Z.ai
Precios
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Opus 5.5 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrada / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $4 | 0.13× |
| Salida / 1M tokens | $3 | $20 | 0.15× |
| Lectura de caché / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $0.2 | 0.5× |
| Escritura en caché | - | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | - |
Tarifas tomadas del catálogo en vivo al generar el sitio; la página de cada modelo tiene la ficha de precios actualizada.
Dónde queda cada uno: precio de entrada por 1M de tokens entre los 83 modelos de chat que se facturan en esta unidad (escala logarítmica)
Capacidades
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Opus 5.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Uso de herramientas | sí | sí |
| Control del razonamiento | configurable | siempre activo |
| Salida estructurada | - | sí |
| Caché de prompts | implícito + explícito | explícito (tú marcas el prefijo) |
| Duración de la caché | no publicado | 5m default, 1h option |
| Prefijo mínimo en caché | 1,024 tokens | 512 tokens |
Especificaciones
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Opus 5.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Modalidades de entrada | texto imagen vídeo | texto imagen |
| Modalidades de salida | texto | texto |
| Lanzamiento | 2026-02-14 | 2026-09-22 |
| Corte de conocimiento | - | 2026-06 |
| Ventana de contexto | 256K | 1M |
| Salida máxima | 131K | 128K |
| Parámetro de razonamiento |
| output_config.effort |
| Valores aceptados | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| output_config.effort
|
| Valor por defecto | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on | medium |
Las especificaciones se transcriben de la documentación de cada proveedor; si un proveedor no publica un dato, la fila se omite en vez de deducirlo. Fuentes completas: Dola Seed 2.0 Pro · Claude Opus 5.5
Un mismo prompt en los dos modelos, medido a través de la pasarela
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro superado · 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.
salida 563 tok (+416 razonamiento) latencia 9.4 s
Claude Opus 5.5 superado · 3 sentences
When we turned on reasoning, the model began "thinking out loud" before each answer, generating thousands of internal working tokens that users never see but that we are billed for just like the final response. Those hidden tokens are charged at the output rate, typically the most expensive rate, so the same question with the same visible answer now costs roughly twice as much or more. We can bring the bill back down without losing the quality gains by capping the reasoning budget and reserving reasoning mode for the complex tasks that actually benefit from it.
salida 263 tok (+102 razonamiento) latencia 5.7 s
Cumplimiento de la instrucción (exactamente tres frases, se pueden contar), adaptación al público (registro de CFO) y la diferencia de facturación por razonamiento oculto que dejan ver los contadores de tokens de abajo.
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro superado · 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. […]
salida 1278 tok (+951 razonamiento) latencia 16.7 s
Claude Opus 5.5 superado · 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 ``` **Explanation:** The original code counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *items in a run*. Both `cur` and `best` started at 0, and `cur` reset to 0 on a mismatch, so a run of length *n* was reported as *n − 1*. For a single-element list the loop never executes, so it returned 0 instead of 1. For `[5, 5]` it returned 1 instead of 2. The fix treats every element as the start of a run of length 1: `best` and `cur` start at 1, and `cur` resets to 1 (not 0) when the value changes. An explicit check returns 0 for an empty list. The "misses runs at the last index" reports are the same off-by-one bug rather than a separate one. […]
salida 723 tok (+303 razonamiento) latencia 10.4 s
Si la corrección funciona de verdad (se puede ejecutar), lo densa que es la explicación y la eficiencia en tokens en una tarea acotada.
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro superado · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
salida 506 tok (+452 razonamiento) latencia 8.6 s
Claude Opus 5.5 superado · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` **Judgment calls to check:** - **quarter**: Kept as "September quarter" rather than "Q3", since the fiscal calendar isn't stated. The text mentions an upcoming "Q4 close," so it may be fiscal Q3, but that's not certain. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text says only "412 for the topline." It doesn't state currency or units, and the figure is on a constant-currency basis, not reported USD. USD millions is an assumption. Use `null` if you need strictly stated values. - **growth_pct**: The source says "eleven and change," so the true figure is slightly above 11. 11 is an approximation. - **guidance**: Guidance was explicitly withheld. I recorded that rather than `null`, since the text addresses it directly.
salida 829 tok (+488 razonamiento) latencia 10.9 s
Respeto del esquema (sin campos inventados), tentación de alucinar (la guidance se omite a propósito) y diferencias entre las vías de salida estructurada.
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro superado · 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)
salida 1041 tok (+872 razonamiento) latencia 11.4 s
Claude Opus 5.5 superado · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for our API gateway. Why pay twice for the same context? Our gateway now stores repeated prompt prefixes, system instructions, and document chunks, then reuses them whether your request goes to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or an open-source model. Teams running retrieval pipelines or long agent loops can cut token costs by up to 60 percent and trim latency on every cached call. Setup takes one configuration flag; no code changes are required. Cache rules respect tenant boundaries, expire on your schedule, and log every hit for audit review. Dashboards show savings by provider, route, and application in real time. Cross-Provider Prompt Caching is available on all Pro and Enterprise plans. Turn it on today.
salida 1263 tok (+1007 razonamiento) latencia 13.5 s
Respeto de las restricciones (límite de palabras, lista de palabras prohibidas, una única pregunta), sello de estilo y control de la longitud.
Cambia de uno a otro con una sola línea
Los dos ids aparecen en todas las pestañas de abajo; lo único que cambia es el par de líneas resaltadas. El endpoint, la clave y la estructura de la solicitud son los mismos.
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="claude-opus-5-5", # descomenta esta línea, comenta la de arriba
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: "claude-opus-5-5", // descomenta esta línea, comenta la de arriba
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": "claude-opus-5-5", # descomenta esta línea, comenta la de arriba
"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: "claude-opus-5-5", // descomenta esta línea, comenta la de arriba
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("claude-opus-5-5") // descomenta esta línea, comenta la de arriba
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));Preguntas frecuentes
¿Cuál es más barato, Dola Seed 2.0 Pro o Claude Opus 5.5?
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro es más barato en Entrada / 1M tokens ($0.5 frente a $4, una diferencia de 8.0×). En otras filas puede ser al revés: la tabla de arriba recoge todas las tarifas, y el coste real depende de tu combinación de uso.
¿Puedo hacer pruebas A/B de Dola Seed 2.0 Pro frente a Claude Opus 5.5 sin dos integraciones?
Sí. Los dos se sirven desde el mismo endpoint compatible con OpenAI y con una sola clave API. Para cambiar de uno a otro basta con tocar una línea, el nombre del modelo, así que puedes mandar una parte del tráfico a cada uno y comparar directamente las facturas.
¿Admiten Dola Seed 2.0 Pro y Claude Opus 5.5 caché de prompts?
Sí. Los dos cobran las lecturas de caché por debajo de su tarifa de entrada, así que las cargas de trabajo que reutilizan un prefijo ya cacheado cuestan menos de lo que sugieren los precios de lista. Las tarifas exactas de lectura de caché están en la tabla de precios de arriba.