Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Sonnet 5
什麼情況選哪一個
Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 在價目表的每一行都更便宜——輸入 $0.5 對 $2（低 4 倍）、輸出 $3 對 $10、快取讀取 $0.1 對 $0.2——而且它是唯一在文字和影像之外還接受視訊的，視窗 256000 token、最多輸出 131072 token。claude-sonnet-5 更貴，但帶 1000000 token 脈絡，處理長文件或整個程式庫的空間大約是四倍，最大輸出 128000 token 與之相近。兩者都做對話、程式碼、推理和工具，思考都可關閉，所以按脈絡和視訊輸入來選，而不是按功能清單。
Benchmark 成績
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro：供應商沒有公布 benchmark 成績。
供應商公布： Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic DeepSeek Google Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
定價
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Sonnet 5 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $2 | 0.25× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $3 | $10 | 0.3× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $0.2 | 0.5× |
| 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 76 個聊天模型（對數尺度）
功能
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Sonnet 5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 可設定 | 可設定 |
| 結構化輸出 | - | 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 Pro | Claude Sonnet 5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 圖像 影片 | 文字 圖像 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-02-14 | 2026-06-30 |
| 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 |
|
|
| 可接受的值 | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| thinking.type
effort
"enabled" returns 400 |
| 預設值 | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on | thinking 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 Pro · Claude Sonnet 5
同一段提示詞，兩個模型，經閘道實測
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 Sonnet 5 通過 · 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.
輸出 194 tok 延遲 4.3 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 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 Sonnet 5 通過 · 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. […]
輸出 536 tok 延遲 7.1 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 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 Sonnet 5 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11.5, "guidance": null } ```
輸出 348 tok 延遲 5.3 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 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 Sonnet 5 通過 · 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.
輸出 259 tok 延遲 4.8 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-pro",
# model="claude-sonnet-5", # 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
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", // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
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", # 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
"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", // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
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") // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
.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 Sonnet 5 哪個比較便宜？
以「輸入 / 1M tokens」來看，Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 比較便宜（$0.5 對 $2，相差 4.0×）。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 Pro 和 Claude Sonnet 5 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 Pro 與 Claude Sonnet 5 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。