Dola Seed 2.0 Lite vs Dola Seed 2.0 Pro
何时使用哪一个 — 经过整理的结论，而非基准测试表格
Dola-Seed-2.0-lite 和 Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 均于 2026-02-14 发布，具有相同的 256000-token 上下文、131072 最大输出、聊天/代码/工具，以及禁用 thinking 的选项，因此区别在于价格和输入。当成本或音频至关重要时，请选择 Dola-Seed-2.0-lite：它接受文本、图像、视频和音频，并且在输入（$0.25 对 $0.50）和缓存读取（$0.05 对 $0.10）上的成本仅为一半，输出为 $2 对 $3。当你需要推理能力标志且输入仅为文本、图像或视频时，请选择 Dola-Seed-2.0-pro。
定价
| Dola Seed 2.0 Lite | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M tokens | $0.25 | $0.5 | 0.5× |
| 输出 / 1M tokens | $2 | $3 | 0.67× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M tokens | $0.05 | $0.1 | 0.5× |
费率取自构建时的实时目录；每个模型页面均附有当前的费率卡。
它们的位置 — 以该计费单位计费的所有 63 个 聊天 模型的 每 1M token 的输入价格（对数刻度）
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 |
| 结构化输出 | 是 | — |
| 提示词缓存 | 隐式 + 显式 | 隐式 + 显式 |
| 缓存生存时间 | 未公开 | 未公开 |
| 最小缓存前缀 | 1024 个 token | 1024 个 token |
规格
| Dola Seed 2.0 Lite | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| 输入模态 | 文本 图像 音频 视频 | 文本 图像 视频 |
| 输出模态 | 文本 | 文本 |
| 发布日期 | 2026-02-14 | 2026-02-14 |
| 上下文窗口 | 256K | 256K |
| 最大输出 | 131K | 131K |
| 思考参数 |
|
|
| 允许的值 | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| thinking.type
reasoning_effort
|
| 默认值 | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on |
规格转录自各供应商的文档；若供应商未发布某项数据，则直接省略该行，而非进行推断。 完整来源： Dola Seed 2.0 Lite · Dola Seed 2.0 Pro
单个 Prompt，两个模型 —— 通过网关实测
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 通过 · 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. […]
输出 1306 tok (+1096 思考) 延迟 18.2 s
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通过 · 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.
输出 563 tok (+416 思考) 延迟 9.4 s
指令遵循（恰好三句，可数）、受众适配（面向 CFO 的语气），以及下方 token 计量所暴露的隐藏思考计费缺口。
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 通过 · 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. […]
输出 2620 tok (+2217 思考) 延迟 33.2 s
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通过 · 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. […]
输出 1278 tok (+951 思考) 延迟 16.7 s
修复是否真的正确（可运行）、解释的信息密度，以及在一个边界明确的任务上的 token 效率。
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 通过 · 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" }
输出 1502 tok (+1439 思考) 延迟 20.2 s
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
输出 506 tok (+452 思考) 延迟 8.6 s
schema 服从度（不臆造字段）、幻觉压力（guidance 明确被暂缓给出），以及结构化输出路径的差异。
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. […]
输出 1870 tok (+1695 思考) 延迟 23.1 s
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通过 · 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)
输出 1041 tok (+872 思考) 延迟 11.4 s
约束服从度（字数预算、禁用词表、唯一的那句问句）、文风指纹，以及长度控制。
只需一行代码即可在它们之间切换
两个 ID 都包含在下方的每个选项卡中 — 高亮显示的两行是唯一的修改。相同的端点，相同的密钥，相同的请求结构。
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", # 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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", // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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", # 取消注释此行，注释上一行
"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", // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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") // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常见问题
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 和 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 哪个更便宜？
在 输入 / 1m tokens 方面，Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 更便宜（$0.25 对比 $0.5，相差 2.0×）。其他行可能得出相反的结论——上方表格提供了完整信息，实际成本取决于你的组合使用情况。
我可以在不进行两次集成的情况下，对 Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 和 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 进行 A/B 测试吗？
可以。两者均通过同一个兼容 OpenAI 的端点提供服务，并使用同一把 API 密钥——切换只需更改一行模型字符串，因此你可以将一部分流量路由到各个模型并直接比较账单。
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 和 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 支持提示词缓存吗？
是的 —— 两者对缓存读取的计费均低于其输入费率，因此热前缀工作负载的成本低于标价。准确的缓存读取行位于上方的定价表中。