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

> Source: <https://dev.to/zoopfizz/comparing-ai-video-models-on-the-same-prompt-veo-31-kling-30-seedance-2x-and-wan-30-43i1>
> Published: 2026-10-28 05:31:38+00:00

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](https://zoopfizz.com)), 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.

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 |  | 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

**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.

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:

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](https://zoopfizz.com/models.md) and [zoopfizz.com/pricing.md](https://zoopfizz.com/pricing.md), checked October 2026. Prices are ZoopFizz list prices in USD-equivalent credits. Your provider's pricing may differ.*