Dola Seed 2.0 Lite vs Dola Seed 2.0 Pro
什么时候选哪个
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。
Benchmark 成绩
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro：供应商没有公布 benchmark 成绩。
供应商公布： Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
价格
| Dola Seed 2.0 Lite | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M token | $0.25 | $0.5 | 0.5× |
| 输出 / 1M token | $2 | $3 | 0.67× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M token | $0.05 | $0.1 | 0.5× |
价格取自构建时的实时目录，最新价格见各模型页面。
两个模型所处的位置：全部 76 个按同一单位计费的聊天模型的每 1M token 输入价分布（对数刻度）
能力
| Dola Seed 2.0 Lite | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具调用 | 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 |
| 缓存有效期 | 未公布 | 未公布 |
| 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 |
|
|
| 可选值 | 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 |
规格照录自各供应商的文档；供应商没有公布的项目，对应的行直接省略，不做推断。 完整来源： Dola Seed 2.0 Lite · Dola Seed 2.0 Pro
同一条提示词，两个模型，经网关实测
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，数得出来）、受众适配（对 CFO 说话的口吻），以及下方 token 计数暴露出的隐藏思考计费差额。
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（能运行）、解释的信息密度，以及在一个范围明确的任务上的 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
是否严守 schema（不臆造字段）、能否顶住幻觉压力（原文明说暂不给出 guidance），以及结构化输出路径的差异。
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 未通过 · 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
是否守住约束（字数预算、禁用词表、只能有一个问句）、文风特征，以及长度控制。
改一行代码就能在两个模型之间切换
下方每个标签页里都有两个模型 ID，高亮的那两行是唯一要改的地方。端点不变，API key 不变，请求结构也不变。
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？
按「输入 / 1M token」算，Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 更便宜（$0.25 对 $0.5，相差 2.0×）。其他计费项的结论可能相反，完整价格见上方表格，实际成本取决于你的用量构成。
不用分别集成两次，就能对 Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 和 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 做 A/B 测试吗？
可以。两个模型走同一个 OpenAI 兼容端点，用同一个 API key，切换时只要改一行里的模型名，所以可以给两个模型各分一部分流量，直接对比账单。
Dola Seed 2.0 Lite 和 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 支持提示词缓存吗？
支持。两个模型的缓存读取价都低于各自的输入价，所以前缀能反复命中缓存的负载，实际成本会比按官网价估算的低。具体的缓存读取价见上方价格表。