Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 目前为邀请制。下方是它的实时价格,但调用前需要先为你的工作空间开通权限;打算根据这份对比做开发的话,请先向我们申请。
什么时候选哪个
Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 在单位工作成本上要便宜得多——每百万输入 token 为 $0.5 对比 $10(20 倍),输出为 $3 对比 $50(约 16.7 倍)——且它是两者中唯一支持视频输入并允许你关闭思考功能的模型,因此在需要控制推理成本的高吞吐量聊天、代码和工具相关任务中,请选择它。当任务需要其 1,000,000-token 的上下文而不是 256,000,并且你能接受思考功能无法禁用且输入仅限文本和图像时,请选择 claude-fable-5-1。两者的缓存读取都很便宜,分别为每百万 $0.1 和 $0.25。
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 Pro | Claude Fable 5.1 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M token | $0.5 | $10 | 0.05× |
| 输出 / 1M token | $3 | $50 | 0.06× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M token | $0.1 | $0.25 | 0.4× |
| 缓存写入 | - | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | - |
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 79 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 Pro | Claude Fable 5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具调用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 可配置 | 始终开启 |
| 结构化输出 | - | 是 |
| 提示词缓存 | 隐式 + 显式 | 显式(由你标记前缀) |
| 缓存有效期 | 未公布 | 5m default, 1h option |
| 最小缓存前缀 | 1024 个 token | 1024 个 token |
规格
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Fable 5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| 输入模态 | 文本 图像 视频 | 文本 图像 |
| 输出模态 | 文本 | 文本 |
| 发布日期 | 2026-02-14 | 2026-09-01 |
| 知识截止日期 | - | 2026-06 |
| 上下文窗口 | 256K | 1M |
| 最大输出 | 131K | 128K |
| 思考参数 |
| output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on) |
| 可选值 | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| effort
|
| 默认值 | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on | thinking always on (adaptive) effort
|
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 Pro · Claude Fable 5.1
同一条提示词,两个模型,经网关实测
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
Claude Fable 5.1 通过 · 3 sentences
When we enabled reasoning, the model started generating a long chain of internal "thinking" tokens before producing each answer, and we're billed for those tokens at the same output rate even though users never see them. In practice, that hidden reasoning often runs several times longer than the visible response, so the total tokens per request roughly doubled while the number of requests stayed flat. The upside is measurably better accuracy on complex tasks, so the right conversation is whether that quality gain justifies the cost—and if not, we can restrict reasoning to the workflows that actually need it rather than turning it on globally.
输出 186 tok 延迟 3.2 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 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
Claude Fable 5.1 通过 · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): cur = cur + 1 if xs[i] == xs[i - 1] else 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` counts *matches between adjacent elements* rather than *elements in the run*: it starts at 0 and only increments when `xs[i] == xs[i-1]`, so a run of length k produces a count of k−1. That's why a single element returns 0 instead of 1, and why every other run also comes out one short — the "misses runs at the end" reports are the same off-by-one seen on inputs like `[1, 2, 2]`, where the trailing run of length 2 is reported as 1 (the original code does update `best` inside the loop, so end-of-list runs aren't actually skipped, just undercounted). […]
输出 882 tok (+507 思考) 延迟 3.4 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 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
Claude Fable 5.1 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3 (September quarter)", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on judgment calls (not part of the object): - **revenue_usd_m**: The text says "412 for the topline" but never states the currency or that the figure is in millions; it's also on a constant-currency basis and prefaced with "call it," so it's approximate. If you want strict literalism, this should be `null`. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11%; the exact figure isn't given. - **quarter**: "September quarter" is Q3 on a calendar basis, consistent with the reference to a pending Q4 close. - **guidance**: Explicitly withheld, so `null`.
输出 633 tok (+349 思考) 延迟 3.8 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 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
Claude Fable 5.1 通过 · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for the Gateway.** Starting today, your API gateway can cache prompts once and reuse them across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and any other provider you route to. Long system instructions, retrieval context, and few-shot examples are stored at the gateway layer, so switching models no longer means paying to resend the same tokens. Why send the same 8,000-token preamble to three different vendors when you could send it once? Our cache normalizes prompt segments, fingerprints them, and serves matching prefixes from memory before the request ever reaches an upstream API. Early customers report token costs falling by 30 to 60 percent on high-volume workloads, with median latency dropping alongside. Available today on all Team and Enterprise plans.
输出 1722 tok (+1463 思考) 延迟 2.9 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-pro",
# model="claude-fable-5-1", # 取消注释此行,注释上一行
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-5-1", // 取消注释此行,注释上一行
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-5-1", # 取消注释此行,注释上一行
"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-5-1", // 取消注释此行,注释上一行
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-5-1") // 取消注释此行,注释上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常见问题
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 和 Claude Fable 5.1 哪个更便宜?
按「输入 / 1M token」算,Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 更便宜($0.5 对 $10,相差 20×)。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 Pro 和 Claude Fable 5.1 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 Pro 和 Claude Fable 5.1 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。