Dola Seed 2.0 Lite vs Dola Seed 2.0 Pro
何時該用哪一個 — 綜合評斷，而非基準測試數據表
Dola-Seed-2.0-lite 與 Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 皆於 2026-02-14 推出，具備相同的 256000 token 上下文、131072 最大輸出、chat/code/tools 功能，以及關閉 thinking 的選項，因此差異在於價格與輸入。若考量成本或音訊，請選擇 Dola-Seed-2.0-lite：它支援文字、圖片、影片與音訊輸入，且輸入（$0.25 對 $0.50）與快取讀取（$0.05 對 $0.10）的成本僅為一半，輸出則為 $2 對 $3。當您需要其推理能力標記，且輸入僅包含文字、圖片或影片時，請選擇 Dola-Seed-2.0-pro。
定價
| Dola Seed 2.0 Lite | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $0.25 | $0.5 | 0.5× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $2 | $3 | 0.67× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.05 | $0.1 | 0.5× |
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 63 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 | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 可配置 | 可配置 |
| 結構化輸出 | 是 | — |
| 提示快取 | 隱式 + 顯式 | 隱式 + 顯式 |
| 快取生命週期 | 未公開 | 未公開 |
| 最小快取前綴 | 1024 個 token | 1024 個 token |
規格
| Dola Seed 2.0 Lite | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 影像 音訊 影片 | 文字 影像 影片 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-02-14 | 2026-02-14 |
| 上下文視窗 | 256K | 256K |
| 最大輸出 | 131K | 131K |
| 思考參數 |
|
|
| 可接受的值 | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| thinking.type
reasoning_effort
|
| 預設值 | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on |
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 · Dola Seed 2.0 Pro
單一提示詞，兩款模型 — 經由閘道測量
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
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通過 · 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.
輸出 563 tok (+416 思考) 延遲 9.4 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。
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
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通過 · 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. […]
輸出 1278 tok (+951 思考) 延遲 16.7 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。
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
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
輸出 506 tok (+452 思考) 延遲 8.6 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。
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
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通過 · 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)
輸出 1041 tok (+872 思考) 延遲 11.4 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="Dola-Seed-2.0-pro", # 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)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: "Dola-Seed-2.0-pro", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
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": "Dola-Seed-2.0-pro", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
"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: "Dola-Seed-2.0-pro", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
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("Dola-Seed-2.0-pro") // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
.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 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 哪個比較便宜？
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 在 輸入 / 1m tokens 上較便宜（$0.25 對比 $0.5，相差 2.0×）。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 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 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 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 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。