Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
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 是更便宜的文本路径，每百万输入/输出 $0.5/$3，对比 gemini-3.6-flash 的 $1.5/$7.5——输入 3 倍、输出 2.5 倍——并且最大输出翻倍（131072 对 65536），还允许关闭思考。需要 1048576 token 上下文（大 4 倍）或音频输入（按每百万音频 token $5 计费）时选 gemini-3.6-flash，Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 根本不接受音频。其余情况下 Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 以更低费率处理文本、图像和视频输入并支持推理与工具，缓存读取 $0.1 对 $0.15。
定价
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $1.5 | 0.33× |
| 输出 / 1M tokens | $3 | $7.5 | 0.4× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $0.15 | 0.67× |
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 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 4096 个 token |
规格
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemini 3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| 输入模态 | 文本 图像 视频 | 文本 图像 音频 视频 |
| 输出模态 | 文本 | 文本 |
| 发布日期 | 2026-02-14 | — |
| 知识截止日期 | — | 2026-03 |
| 上下文窗口 | 256K | 1M |
| 最大输出 | 131K | 66K |
| 思考参数 |
| thinkingLevel |
| 允许的值 | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
|
|
| 默认值 | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on | medium |
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 · Gemini 3.6 Flash
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
Gemini 3.6 Flash 通过 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate thousands of internal "thinking" tokens behind the scenes to process logic before delivering the final response. Because our vendor bills us for every token generated—including these intermediate processing steps—our billable output volume per query surged significantly. Since output tokens carry a much higher unit cost than input tokens, this jump in processing volume directly doubled our overall spend.
输出 893 tok (+816 思考) 延迟 4.7 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
Gemini 3.6 Flash 通过 · 8/8 cases
Here is the fixed function along with an explanation of the bugs: ```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 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` ### Explanation The original function initialized `cur` and `best` to `0` and incremented `cur` on matching adjacent items, which meant it was counting identical adjacent *pairs* rather than the total number of *elements* in a run. This caused single-element inputs to skip the loop and return `0` instead of `1`, and undercounted all run lengths by 1 (for example, a run of two items at the end of the list resulted in `cur = 1`). […]
输出 2034 tok (+1768 思考) 延迟 10.0 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
Gemini 3.6 Flash 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": "withheld" } ```
输出 2843 tok (+2783 思考) 延迟 13.1 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
Gemini 3.6 Flash 未命中 · 60 words, 0 banned, 0 questions
72: reducing 73: your 74: monthly 75: token 76: spend. S6 (21): 77: You 78: can 79: easily 80: set 81: custom 82: expiration 83: rules, 84: configure 85: TTL 86: settings, 87: and 88: manage 89: cache 90: invalidation 91: across 92: all 93: vendors 94: from 95: one 96: centralized 97: dashboard. S7 (23): 98: Start 99: optimizing […]
输出 4092 tok (+3929 思考) 延迟 16.3 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="gemini-3.6-flash", # 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: "gemini-3.6-flash", // 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": "gemini-3.6-flash", # 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: "gemini-3.6-flash", // 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("gemini-3.6-flash") // 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 Gemini 3.6 Flash 哪个更便宜？
在 输入 / 1m tokens 方面，Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 更便宜（$0.5 对比 $1.5，相差 3.0×）。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 Pro 和 Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 Gemini 3.6 Flash 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。