Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Sonnet 5
Cuál usar y cuándo — veredicto seleccionado, no una tabla de benchmarks
Dola-Seed-2.0-pro es más barato en cada línea de la tarifa — $0.5 frente a $2 de entrada (4x menos), $3 frente a $10 de salida y $0.1 frente a $0.2 en lecturas de caché — y es el único que acepta vídeo junto a texto e imagen, con una ventana de 256000 tokens y hasta 131072 tokens de salida. claude-sonnet-5 cuesta más pero lleva un contexto de 1000000 tokens, unas cuatro veces más espacio para documentos largos o repositorios enteros, con un máximo de salida similar de 128000 tokens. Ambos hacen chat, código, razonamiento y herramientas con pensamiento desactivable, así que elige por contexto y entrada de vídeo, no por listas de funciones.
Precios
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Sonnet 5 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrada / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $2 | 0.25× |
| Salida / 1M tokens | $3 | $10 | 0.3× |
| Lectura de caché / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $0.2 | 0.5× |
| Escritura en caché | — | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | — |
Tarifas del catálogo en vivo en el momento de la compilación; la página de cada modelo incluye la ficha actualizada.
Dónde se sitúan — precio de entrada por 1M de tokens en todos los 63 modelos de chat en esta unidad de facturación (escala logarítmica)
Capacidades
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Sonnet 5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Uso de herramientas | sí | sí |
| Control de pensamiento | configurable | configurable |
| Salida estructurada | — | sí |
| Caché de prompt | implícito + explícito | explícito (marcas el prefijo) |
| Tiempo de vida de la caché | no publicado | 5m default, 1h option |
| Prefijo mínimo en caché | 1024 tokens | 1024 tokens |
Especificaciones
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Sonnet 5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Modalidades de entrada | texto imagen vídeo | texto imagen |
| Modalidades de salida | texto | texto |
| Lanzamiento | 2026-02-14 | 2026-06-30 |
| Límite de conocimiento | — | 2026-01 |
| Ventana de contexto | 256K | 1M |
| Salida máxima | 131K | 128K |
| Parámetro de pensamiento |
|
|
| Valores aceptados | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| thinking.type
effort
"enabled" returns 400 |
| Predeterminado | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on | thinking on (adaptive) effort
|
Las especificaciones se transcriben de la documentación de cada proveedor; si un proveedor no publica una fila, se omite en lugar de inferirse. Fuentes completas: Dola Seed 2.0 Pro · Claude Sonnet 5
Un prompt, ambos modelos — medido a través del gateway
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 pensamiento) latencia 9.4 s
Claude Sonnet 5 superado · 3 sentences
Reasoning mode works by having the model generate extended internal "thinking" steps before producing its final answer, and since we're billed on total tokens, that hidden reasoning text adds significantly to what we pay for—even though you never see it in the output. This is different from simply getting longer visible responses; the model is essentially "showing its work" behind the scenes, and complex prompts can trigger thousands of extra reasoning tokens per request. The upside is improved accuracy on complex tasks, but if we want to control costs, we should selectively enable reasoning only for queries that truly need it, rather than applying it universally.
salida 194 tok latencia 4.3 s
Seguimiento de la instrucción (exactamente tres frases — contables), adaptación a la audiencia (registro de CFO), y la brecha de facturación por pensamiento oculto que los medidores de tokens de abajo dejan ver.
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 pensamiento) latencia 16.7 s
Claude Sonnet 5 superado · 8/8 cases
## The Bug The function has two related off-by-one issues rooted in the same cause: `cur` and `best` are initialized to `0` instead of `1`, treating run lengths as the number of *matches* between adjacent elements rather than the number of *elements* in the run. This means a single-element input never enters the loop (since `range(1, 1)` is empty) and returns `0` instead of the correct answer of `1`. It also means that for any input, the run length is undercounted by exactly one — a run of 3 equal elements only produces 2 "match" increments, so `best` ends up as 2 instead of 3. The claim that it "misses runs that end at the last index" is actually a symptom of this same undercount: the logic does update `best` correctly on every iteration (including the last), but because it's counting matches instead of elements, the final reported value is always one less than the true longest run. […]
salida 536 tok latencia 7.1 s
Si el arreglo es realmente correcto (ejecutable), la densidad de la explicación, y la eficiencia en tokens sobre 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 pensamiento) latencia 8.6 s
Claude Sonnet 5 superado · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11.5, "guidance": null } ```
salida 348 tok latencia 5.3 s
Obediencia al esquema (sin campos inventados), presión de alucinación (guidance se retiene explícitamente), y diferencias en la ruta 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 pensamiento) latencia 11.4 s
Claude Sonnet 5 superado · 123 words, 0 banned, 1 question
## Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching We're rolling out a new caching layer for our API gateway that works across every major LLM provider you connect through it. Instead of resending identical prompts and paying full price each time, the gateway recognizes repeated requests and serves cached responses in milliseconds—regardless of whether you're routing to OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google. What does this mean for your bill and your latency? Both drop, often significantly, especially for teams running high-volume, repetitive workloads like customer support bots or batch content generation. The cache is configurable per route, with adjustable TTLs and invalidation rules, so you stay in control of freshness versus cost. Available now for all Pro and Enterprise plans. Check your dashboard to enable it today.
salida 259 tok latencia 4.8 s
Obediencia a las restricciones (presupuesto de palabras, lista de palabras prohibidas, la única pregunta), huella de estilo, y control de la longitud.
Cambia entre ellos con una línea
Ambos IDs están en cada pestaña a continuación — el par de líneas resaltadas es la única edición. Mismo endpoint, misma clave, misma estructura de solicitud.
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-sonnet-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-sonnet-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-sonnet-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-sonnet-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-sonnet-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 Sonnet 5?
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro es más barato en entrada / 1m tokens ($0.5 vs $2, con una diferencia de 4.0×). Otras filas pueden indicar lo contrario — la tabla anterior muestra la ficha completa, y el costo real depende de su combinación.
¿Puedo hacer pruebas A/B de Dola Seed 2.0 Pro frente a Claude Sonnet 5 sin dos integraciones?
Sí. Ambos se sirven a través del mismo endpoint compatible con OpenAI con una clave API — el cambio es una modificación de una línea en la cadena del modelo, por lo que puede enrutar una fracción del tráfico a cada uno y comparar las facturas directamente.
¿Admiten Dola Seed 2.0 Pro y Claude Sonnet 5 caché de prompts?
Sí — ambos cobran las lecturas en caché por debajo de su tarifa de entrada, por lo que las cargas de trabajo con prefijo caliente cuestan menos de lo que sugieren las tarifas de lista. Las filas exactas de lectura en caché están en la tabla de precios de arriba.