Comparing AI video models on the same prompt: Veo 3.1, Kling 3.0, Seedance 2.x and Wan 3.0

Koroo — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 05:31:38 +0000

Most "which AI video model is best" articles compare marketing pages. This one does something narrower and more useful: it reads the actual published spec sheets and price tables, and works out where the constraints bite before you spend a credit.

I maintain the catalogue for a small AI video workspace (ZoopFizz), which means I am the person who has to encode every one of these model specs into a form. That process surfaces a lot of detail that never makes it onto a landing page. None of the numbers below are benchmarks I invented — they are the published specs and retail rates, checked October 2026.

The specs that actually change your workflow

Four models, one table. Everything below is from the published catalogue as of October 2026.

	Veo 3.1 Fast	Kling 3.0	Seedance 2.5	Wan 3.0
Provider	Google	Kling AI	ByteDance	Alibaba
Resolution	720p, 1080p	720p, 1080p	480p, 720p, 1080p	480p, 720p, 1080p
Duration	8s only	5, 10, 15s	5–30s	5–30s
Max aspect ratios	16:9, 9:16	16:9, 9:16, 1:1	7 ratios incl. 21:9	5 ratios
Audio	Yes (720p+)	Yes	Yes	Silent only
Inputs	text or 1 image	text or 1 image	text or 1 image	text or 1 image

Three things jump out, and all three are constraints rather than features.

Veo 3.1 Fast gives you exactly 8 seconds. Not 5, not 10. If your edit needs a 15-second beat, you are stitching two generations and hoping the second one matches the first. That is a real cost, and it is invisible on the marketing page.

Wan 3.0 is silent. It will happily give you 30 seconds at 1080p, but you are adding audio in post, full stop. For a music-driven social clip that is fine. For anything with dialogue or a sync point, it is a hard no.

Seedance 2.5 and Wan 3.0 both reach 30 seconds while Kling stops at 15 and Veo stops at 8. If long single-take shots are your thing, that narrows the field to two models immediately.

What it actually costs per second

Here is where the marketing pages get vague. Published retail credit rates, standard (non-discounted) pricing, silent video:

Model	480p	720p	1080p
Seedance 1.5 Pro	1.6/s	3.2/s	6.8/s
Seedance 2.0 Mini	7/s	13/s	—
Seedance 2.0 Fast	21/s	45/s	—
Seedance 2.0	25/s	55/s	130/s
Seedance 2.5	40/s	80/s	200/s
Veo 3.1 Fast	—	18.75/s	20.625/s

The spread is roughly 125x between the cheapest and most expensive option per second. Seedance 1.5 Pro at 480p costs 1.6 credits/second; Seedance 2.5 at 1080p costs 200. Both are "Seedance". Both will render a video.

That is the single most useful fact in this article: the model name tells you almost nothing about cost. The resolution and the generation matter more than the family.

The 5-second example, priced out

Concrete numbers for a 5-second 720p silent clip:

Seedance 1.5 Pro: 16 credits
Seedance 2.0 Mini: 65 credits
Seedance 2.0 Fast: 225 credits
Seedance 2.0: 275 credits
Seedance 2.5: 400 credits

And Veo 3.1 Fast, which cannot do 5 seconds, is 150 credits for its fixed 8-second clip — about 18.75 per second.

If you are iterating on a prompt, this is the difference between 16 credits per throw and 400. Twenty-five attempts at 480p Seedance 1.5 Pro costs 8 credits each — 200 credits total. The same twenty-five attempts on Seedance 2.5 at 1080p would cost 1,000 credits each, or 25,000.

Practical takeaway: iterate at 480p on the cheapest model that understands your prompt, then re-run the winner once at high resolution on the model you actually want to ship. You will spend a fraction of what a naive "just generate it at 1080p" loop costs.

Where each model's specs point

Reading the constraint sets side by side, the decision tree gets boring — in a good way.

Veo 3.1 Fast is the only option here that is both short and audio-capable in a single pass. The fixed 8 seconds is annoying, but it removes a decision.

Kling 3.0 is the middle ground: 1080p with audio, and more duration control than Veo offers. 5/10/15 gives real editorial choice.

Seedance 2.5 is for shots that have to be long. 30 seconds in one generation at up to 1080p with audio is a capability nothing else on this list matches. You pay 200 credits/second at 1080p for it.

Wan 3.0 is for long-and-silent. 30 seconds, no audio, less expensive than Seedance 2.5.

Seedance 2.0 Mini is for pure iteration. 7 credits/second at 480p is cheap enough to burn on prompt experiments all afternoon.

Three things the spec sheets bury

1. "Audio supported" is resolution-specific. Wan 3.0 is silent everywhere. Veo 3.1 Fast does audio at 720p and 1080p. Seedance 1.5 Pro only does audio at 720p — its 480p and 1080p tiers are silent. If you assume audio comes free at every resolution, you will find out at render time.

2. Aspect ratio availability is inconsistent. Seedance 2.5 offers seven ratios including 21:9 and an auto mode. Veo 3.1 Fast offers two. Wan 3.0 offers five but not 21:9. If your deliverable is a specific canvas, check the ratio list before you commit to a model.

3. Duration is a hard enum, not a slider. You pick from a list. There is no "make it 12 seconds" — you pick 10 or 15. Expect to trim or pad on most projects.

The honest summary

There is no best model. There is a cheapest model that satisfies your constraints, and it changes per shot.

The workflow the numbers point to:

Write the prompt once, precisely.
Test it at 480p on the cheapest capable model.
When it looks right, re-run at target resolution on the model whose duration and audio specs match the edit.
Budget by credits-per-second, not by model tier.

The 125x price spread between "Seedance" tiers is not a pricing error. It reflects genuinely different capability. But most of the time, the cheap one is enough — and knowing that is worth more than any benchmark.

Specs and retail credit rates above are from the published catalogue at zoopfizz.com/models.md and zoopfizz.com/pricing.md, checked October 2026. Prices are ZoopFizz list prices in USD-equivalent credits. Your provider's pricing may differ.