Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 已从我们的目录下线。下方是它最后公布的价格；这个模型已无法调用，对比中的另一个模型仍可正常调用。
什么时候选哪个
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。
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 | 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 | $1 | 0.1× |
| 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 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 Pro | Claude Fable 5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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) |
| 可选值 | 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
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 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，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 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（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 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
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 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
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", # 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？
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 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 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。