Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Fable 5
何時該用哪一個 — 綜合評斷，而非基準測試數據表
Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 的價格遠低於後者 — 每輸入 token 便宜 20x（$0.5 對 $10），每輸出 token 約便宜 16.7x（$3 對 $50） — 並且它是唯一接受影片輸入、允許最高 131072 輸出 token，且能讓你在需要快速簡單答案時關閉思考功能的模型。claude-fable-5 成本較高，但具備 1000000-token 的上下文，大約是 Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 的 256000 的 3.9x，且思考功能保持開啟。針對非常長的單次處理文件請選擇 claude-fable-5；針對影片輸入、成本控制或高用量工作請選擇 Dola-Seed-2.0-pro。
定價
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Fable 5 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $10 | 0.05× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $3 | $50 | 0.06× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $1 | 0.1× |
| 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 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 Pro | Claude Fable 5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 可配置 | 常駐開啟 |
| 結構化輸出 | — | 是 |
| 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 Pro | Claude Fable 5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 影像 影片 | 文字 影像 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-02-14 | 2026-06-09 |
| 知識截止日期 | — | 2026-01 |
| 上下文視窗 | 256K | 1M |
| 最大輸出 | 131K | 128K |
| 思考參數 |
| output_config.effort (thinking.type is adaptive-only and needs no configuration) |
| 可接受的值 | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| effort
both "enabled" and "disabled" return 400 |
| 預設值 | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on | thinking always on (adaptive) effort
|
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 Pro · Claude Fable 5
單一提示詞，兩款模型 — 經由閘道測量
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
Claude Fable 5 通過 · 3 sentences
When we enabled reasoning, the model began generating extensive internal "thinking" tokens before each answer, and those tokens are billed as output even though users never see them. Output tokens typically cost several times more than input tokens, so adding thousands of hidden reasoning tokens per request effectively multiplied our per-query cost. In short, we're paying for a much longer response behind the scenes in exchange for higher answer quality, and we can manage this by tuning reasoning effort levels or reserving reasoning mode for complex tasks only.
輸出 228 tok 延遲 6.7 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。
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
Claude Fable 5 通過 · 8/8 cases
## Fixed code ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` ## Explanation The original function counts **adjacent equal pairs** rather than **items in a run**: a run of length *n* contains only *n − 1* equal neighbor pairs, so every result is off by one — a single-element list yields 0 instead of 1, and `[1, 2, 2]` yields 1 instead of 2 (which callers perceive as "missing" the run at the end). The fix is to initialize both `cur` and `best` to 1 (any nonempty list has a run of at least length 1), reset `cur` to 1 rather than 0 when
輸出 531 tok 延遲 12.5 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 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
Claude Fable 5 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 interpretation: "up eleven and change" is rendered as 11 (the precise figure isn't stated), and guidance is null because it was explicitly withheld.
輸出 192 tok 延遲 6.5 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 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
Claude Fable 5 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for our API Gateway** Starting today, your repeated prompts are cached once and reused across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and any other provider you route through the gateway. Instead of paying full token costs every time your application sends the same system prompt or context block, the gateway detects matching prefixes and serves cached results in milliseconds. Why keep spending money and latency on identical requests? Early adopters report cost reductions of up to 60 percent on high-volume workloads, along with faster median response times. Configuration is simple: enable caching in your dashboard, set a TTL, and choose which routes participate. Cache entries are encrypted at rest and never shared between accounts. Available now on all plans.
輸出 1173 tok 延遲 18.2 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-pro",
# model="claude-fable-5", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
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-fable-5", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
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-fable-5", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
"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-fable-5", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
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-fable-5") // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常見問題
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 和 Claude Fable 5 哪個比較便宜？
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 在 輸入 / 1m tokens 上較便宜（$0.5 對比 $10，相差 20×）。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 Pro 和 Claude Fable 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 Pro 與 Claude Fable 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。