新用戶 免費註冊,送 10 次呼叫,最高 $1,免綁卡。

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite vs Claude Opus 5.5

vs

何時用哪一個

Dola-Seed-2.0-lite 是較便宜且輸入範圍更廣的選項,每百萬 token 輸入為 $0.25、輸出為 $2,接受文字、圖片、影片與音訊,具備 256000 token 視窗以及關閉思考的能力。claude-opus-5-5 的輸入成本高出 16x($4),輸出高出 10x($20),且僅接受文字與圖片,但它提供 1000000 token 脈絡,外加無法停用的明確思考與推理旗標。針對您希望能掌控思考過程的高用量或多模態攝取工作,請選擇此 Dola 模型;當您需要極長脈絡且始終開啟推理功能時,則選擇 claude-opus-5-5。

Benchmark 成績

高於同儕均值無人分數更高Dola Seed 2.0 Lite4 / 103 / 10Claude Opus 5.59 / 97 / 9
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Claude Opus 5.5 其他被測模型 同儕均值 無人分數更高
Terminal-bench 4.0
N/A
無人分數更高 66.4%
WenetSpeech test-net (CER)
無人分數更高 4.47%
N/A
OSWorld-Verified
64.4%
N/A
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
N/A
58.7%
GPQA Diamond
88.4%
N/A
BrowseComp
64%
N/A
MMVU
76.7%
N/A

廠商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

定價

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Claude Opus 5.5 Δ
輸入 / 1M tokens $0.25 $4 0.063×
輸出 / 1M tokens $2 $20 0.1×
快取讀取 / 1M tokens $0.05 $0.2 0.25×
快取寫入 - 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) -

費率取自建置時的即時目錄;各模型頁面皆附有目前的費率卡。

它們的相對位置 — 在此計費單位下,所有 74 個 聊天 模型的 每 1M tokens 的輸入價格(對數尺度)

能力

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Claude Opus 5.5
工具使用
思考控制 可配置 常駐開啟
結構化輸出
提示快取 隱式 + 顯式 顯式(由您標記前綴)
快取生命週期 未公開 5m default, 1h option
最小快取前綴 1024 個 token 1024 個 token

規格

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite Claude Opus 5.5
輸入模態 文字 影像 音訊 影片 文字 影像
輸出模態 文字 文字
發布日期 2026-02-14 2026-09-22
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
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
output_config.effort
可接受的值
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled (no auto)
reasoning_effort
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
output_config.effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
預設值 enabled, with reasoning_effort medium medium

規格摘錄自各供應商的文件;供應商未發布的資料列會直接省略,而非自行推測。 完整來源: Dola Seed 2.0 Lite · Claude Opus 5.5

單一提示詞,兩款模型 — 經由閘道測量

提示詞 Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. 檢查 恰好 3 句

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 Opus 5.5 通過 · 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.

輸出 263 tok (+102 思考) 延遲 5.7 s

指令遵循(恰好三句,可數)、受眾適配(面向 CFO 的語氣),以及下方 token 計量所暴露的隱藏思考計費缺口。

提示詞 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. 檢查 修復通過測試

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 Opus 5.5 通過 · 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. […]

輸出 723 tok (+303 思考) 延遲 10.4 s

修復是否真的正確(可執行)、解釋的資訊密度,以及在一個邊界明確的任務上的 token 效率。

提示詞 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. 檢查 合法 JSON,schema 精確

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 Opus 5.5 通過 · 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.

輸出 829 tok (+488 思考) 延遲 10.9 s

schema 服從度(不臆造欄位)、幻覺壓力(guidance 明確被暫緩給出),以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。

提示詞 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. 檢查 120 詞,0 個禁用詞

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 未命中 · 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 Opus 5.5 通過 · 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.

輸出 1263 tok (+1007 思考) 延遲 13.5 s

約束服從度(字數預算、禁用詞表、唯一的那句問句)、文風指紋,以及長度控制。

只需一行程式碼即可在兩者間切換

以下每個頁籤中都有這兩個 ID — 醒目提示的這兩行是唯一的修改處。相同的端點,相同的金鑰,相同的請求結構。

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-opus-5-5",  # 取消註解此行,並註解上一行
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

取得 API 金鑰 →

常見問題

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 和 Claude Opus 5.5 哪個比較便宜?

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 在 輸入 / 1m tokens 上較便宜($0.25 對比 $4,相差 16×)。其他項目可能呈現相反結果 — 上表提供完整資訊,實際成本取決於您的使用組合。

我可以在不進行兩次整合的情況下,對 Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 和 Claude Opus 5.5 進行 A/B 測試嗎?

可以。兩者皆透過同一個相容 OpenAI 的端點提供服務,並使用同一把 API 金鑰 — 切換只需更改一行的模型字串,因此您可以將部分流量分別導向兩者並直接比較帳單。

Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 與 Claude Opus 5.5 支援提示快取嗎?

是的 — 兩者的快取讀取費率皆低於其輸入費率,因此具有暖前綴的工作負載成本會低於牌價所示。確切的快取讀取列請見上方的定價表。

相關比較