Dola Seed 2.0 Lite vs Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 採邀請制。下方的數字是即時費率,但要先取得工作空間的授權才能呼叫;如果你打算依據這份比較來開發,請先向我們申請開通。
什麼情況選哪一個
Dola-Seed-2.0-lite 是更便宜、輸入類型更廣的選項:每百萬 tokens 為 $0.25 輸入與 $2 輸出,比 claude-fable-5-1 的 $10 與 $50 分別低 40x 與 25x,且除了文字與影像外,它還接受影片與音訊,其 thinking 功能可以關閉,並具有稍大的 131072-token 輸出上限。當你需要其 1000000-token 上下文 (約為 Dola 的 256000 的四倍),外加針對文字與影像輸入常駐開啟的 thinking 與 reasoning 標記,且能負擔其費率表時,請選擇 claude-fable-5-1。對於高用量的多模態攝取,Dola 是務實的預設選擇。
Benchmark 成績
供應商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
定價
| Dola Seed 2.0 Lite | Claude Fable 5.1 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $0.25 | $10 | 0.025× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $2 | $50 | 0.04× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.05 | $0.25 | 0.2× |
| 快取寫入 | - | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | - |
費率取自網站建置時的即時目錄;各模型頁面都列有最新的價目。
兩者的相對位置:每 1M tokens 的輸入價格,涵蓋同一計費單位下全部 79 個聊天模型(對數尺度)
功能
| Dola Seed 2.0 Lite | Claude Fable 5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 可設定 | 一律開啟 |
| 結構化輸出 | 是 | 是 |
| 提示詞快取 | 隱式 + 顯式 | 顯式(由你標記前綴) |
| 快取存活時間 | 未公布 | 5m default, 1h option |
| 最小快取前綴 | 1024 個 token | 1024 個 token |
規格
| Dola Seed 2.0 Lite | Claude Fable 5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 圖像 音訊 影片 | 文字 圖像 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-02-14 | 2026-09-01 |
| 知識截止日期 | - | 2026-06 |
| 上下文視窗 | 256K | 1M |
| 最大輸出 | 131K | 128K |
| 思考參數 |
| output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on) |
| 可接受的值 | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| effort
|
| 預設值 | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium | thinking always on (adaptive) effort
|
規格摘錄自各供應商的文件;供應商沒有公布的項目就直接略過,不自行推測。 完整來源: Dola Seed 2.0 Lite · Claude Fable 5.1
同一段提示詞,兩個模型,經閘道實測
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 通過 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning on our production LLM requires the model to run resource-intensive multi-step chain-of-thought inference for every customer-facing query, rather than the single-pass inference that powered our original non-reasoning deployment, and GPU compute—which makes up 90% of our total LLM bill—scales directly with the number of compute cycles each query consumes. Our cloud provider’s LLM billing model charges per million processed tokens, and reasoning workflows generate an average of 2.1x more hidden processing tokens (the intermediate problem-solving steps the model never surfaces to end users) that are still billable, pushing our total monthly token consumption just over double what it was prior to enabling the feature. […]
輸出 1306 tok (+1096 思考) 延遲 18.2 s
Claude Fable 5.1 通過 · 3 sentences
When we enabled reasoning, the model started generating a long chain of internal "thinking" tokens before producing each answer, and we're billed for those tokens at the same output rate even though users never see them. In practice, that hidden reasoning often runs several times longer than the visible response, so the total tokens per request roughly doubled while the number of requests stayed flat. The upside is measurably better accuracy on complex tasks, so the right conversation is whether that quality gain justifies the cost—and if not, we can restrict reasoning to the workflows that actually need it rather than turning it on globally.
輸出 186 tok 延遲 3.2 s
是否照指令做(剛好三句,數得出來)、語氣是否貼合對象(寫給 CFO 看),以及下方 token 計量顯示出的隱藏思考計費落差。
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 通過 · 8/8 cases
### Corrected Function ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: # Handle empty input edge case return 0 best = cur = 1 # Base run length of 1 for any non-empty single element for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 # Reset run length for the new, different element return best ``` ### Bug Explanation (single paragraph) The original function’s core flaw was that it counted the number of consecutive equal adjacent element pairs, rather than the number of elements in the run itself, leading to all results being off by one, which caused both reported issues: a run of k equal elements only has k-1 consecutive matching pairs, so the original function’s maximum `best` value was always one less than the true element count of the longest run. […]
輸出 2620 tok (+2217 思考) 延遲 33.2 s
Claude Fable 5.1 通過 · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): cur = cur + 1 if xs[i] == xs[i - 1] else 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` counts *matches between adjacent elements* rather than *elements in the run*: it starts at 0 and only increments when `xs[i] == xs[i-1]`, so a run of length k produces a count of k−1. That's why a single element returns 0 instead of 1, and why every other run also comes out one short — the "misses runs at the end" reports are the same off-by-one seen on inputs like `[1, 2, 2]`, where the trailing run of length 2 is reported as 1 (the original code does update `best` inside the loop, so end-of-list runs aren't actually skipped, just undercounted). […]
輸出 882 tok (+507 思考) 延遲 3.4 s
修正是否真的正確(跑得起來)、說明的資訊密度,以及在範圍明確的任務上的 token 效率。
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "Formal guidance withheld pending Q4 clos"
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Formal guidance withheld pending Q4 close" }
輸出 1502 tok (+1439 思考) 延遲 20.2 s
Claude Fable 5.1 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3 (September quarter)", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on judgment calls (not part of the object): - **revenue_usd_m**: The text says "412 for the topline" but never states the currency or that the figure is in millions; it's also on a constant-currency basis and prefaced with "call it," so it's approximate. If you want strict literalism, this should be `null`. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11%; the exact figure isn't given. - **quarter**: "September quarter" is Q3 on a calendar basis, consistent with the reference to a pending Q4 close. - **guidance**: Explicitly withheld, so `null`.
輸出 633 tok (+349 思考) 延遲 3.8 s
是否遵守 schema(不自創欄位)、面對幻覺誘因的表現(題目明確不給 guidance),以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 未通過 · 141 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we launch Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, a new feature for our Core API Gateway built to cut redundant AI costs and latency for teams routing requests across multiple LLM providers. Many development teams rotate between OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google Gemini to balance performance, cost, and capability, but identical prompts get reprocessed from scratch with every provider switch, wasting tokens and slowing response times. This feature stores validated prompt responses at the gateway layer, so repeat requests pull from cache regardless of which provider they route to, with configurable TTLs and built-in compliance with all major provider data policies. […]
輸出 1870 tok (+1695 思考) 延遲 23.1 s
Claude Fable 5.1 通過 · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for the Gateway.** Starting today, your API gateway can cache prompts once and reuse them across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and any other provider you route to. Long system instructions, retrieval context, and few-shot examples are stored at the gateway layer, so switching models no longer means paying to resend the same tokens. Why send the same 8,000-token preamble to three different vendors when you could send it once? Our cache normalizes prompt segments, fingerprints them, and serves matching prefixes from memory before the request ever reaches an upstream API. Early customers report token costs falling by 30 to 60 percent on high-volume workloads, with median latency dropping alongside. Available today on all Team and Enterprise plans.
輸出 1722 tok (+1463 思考) 延遲 2.9 s
是否遵守限制(字數上限、禁用詞清單、只能有一句問句)、文字風格的特徵,以及長度控制。
改一行程式碼就能在兩者之間切換
下面每個頁籤都列了這兩個模型 ID,要改的只有醒目標示的那兩行。端點、金鑰和請求格式都不變。
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-lite",
# model="claude-fable-5-1", # 取消這一行的註解,並把上一行註解掉
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
)
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-lite",
// model: "claude-fable-5-1", // 取消這一行的註解,並把上一行註解掉
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
});
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-lite",
# "model": "claude-fable-5-1", # 取消這一行的註解,並把上一行註解掉
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}]
}'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-lite",
// Model: "claude-fable-5-1", // 取消這一行的註解,並把上一行註解掉
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
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-lite")
// .model("claude-fable-5-1") // 取消這一行的註解,並把上一行註解掉
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常見問題
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 和 Claude Fable 5.1 哪個比較便宜?
以「輸入 / 1M tokens」來看,Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 比較便宜($0.25 對 $10,相差 40×)。其他項目的結果可能相反,完整價目請看上表;實際成本要看你的用量組合。
可以只串接一次,就對 Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 和 Claude Fable 5.1 做 A/B 測試嗎?
可以。兩個模型都走同一個 OpenAI 相容端點,用的也是同一把 API 金鑰,切換時只要改一行裡的模型名稱字串。你可以把一部分流量分別導到兩邊,再直接比較帳單。
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 與 Claude Fable 5.1 支援提示詞快取嗎?
支援。兩者的快取讀取費率都低於輸入費率,所以前綴已經進快取的工作負載,實際成本會比官網價算出來的低。確切的快取讀取價格請見上方定價表。