Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Fable 5
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-pro 是两者中便宜得多的一款——输入 token 价格低 20x（$0.5 对比 $10），输出 token 价格约低 16.7x（$3 对比 $50）——并且它是唯一接受视频输入、允许最高 131072 个输出 token，以及让你在需要快速直接的回答时关闭思考功能的模型。claude-fable-5 成本更高，但带有 1000000-token 的上下文，大约是 Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 256000 的 3.9x，并且思考功能始终开启。对于极长的单次文档请求，请选择 claude-fable-5；对于视频输入、成本控制或大批量工作，请选择 Dola-Seed-2.0-pro。
定价
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Claude Fable 5 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $10 | 0.05× |
| 输出 / 1M tokens | $3 | $50 | 0.06× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $1 | 0.1× |
| 缓存写入 | — | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | — |
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 Pro | Claude Fable 5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 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（由您标记前缀） |
| 缓存生存时间 | 未公开 | 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 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2026-06-09 |
| 知识截止日期 | — | 2026-01 |
| 上下文窗口 | 256K | 1M |
| 最大输出 | 131K | 128K |
| 思考参数 |
| output_config.effort (thinking.type is adaptive-only and needs no configuration) |
| 允许的值 | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| effort
both "enabled" and "disabled" return 400 |
| 默认值 | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on | thinking always on (adaptive) effort
|
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 Pro · Claude Fable 5
单个 Prompt，两个模型 —— 通过网关实测
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 通过 · 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.
输出 228 tok 延迟 6.7 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 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 通过 · 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
输出 531 tok 延迟 12.5 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 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 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 interpretation: "up eleven and change" is rendered as 11 (the precise figure isn't stated), and guidance is null because it was explicitly withheld.
输出 192 tok 延迟 6.5 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 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 通过 · 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.
输出 1173 tok 延迟 18.2 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-pro",
# model="claude-fable-5", # 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", // 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", # 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", // 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") // 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 哪个更便宜？
在 输入 / 1m tokens 方面，Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 更便宜（$0.5 对比 $10，相差 20×）。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 Pro 和 Claude Fable 5 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 Pro 和 Claude Fable 5 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。