Skip to content
Model Pareto

Wan 3.0 vs Seedance 2.5

In video generation, Wan 3.0 scores 93.8 and Seedance 2.5 86.1 on the 0–100 quality scale. Seedance 2.5 costs 1.2× as much as Wan 3.0 ($0.23 vs $0.20 per second of 1080p video).
Wan 3.0Seedance 2.5
Focus

Video generation: quality vs price

Compared models are ringed; the other 32 ranked here are greyed.

Lower price is better. Pareto frontier: Hailuo 2.3, Grok Imagine Video, HiDream-O1-Video, Gemini Omni Flash. 4 models are not plotted: Muse Video, MAGI-2 Preview, Bach-1.0 Preview, Cosmos3-Super-Image2Video-4Step.

4 models with no price data — shown in the strip at the left edge

Muse Video, MAGI-2 Preview, Bach-1.0 Preview, Cosmos3-Super-Image2Video-4Step

  • Best-value frontier (nothing is both cheaper and better)
  • Evidencestrong → weak
  • Estimated from other categories
  • Wan 3.0
    Quality
    93.8
    Rank
    #3/34
    Price
    $0.20/s
    Speed
    —

    vs Seedance 2.5: +7.7 quality · 0.87× price

  • Seedance 2.5
    Quality
    86.1
    Rank
    #5/34
    Price
    $0.23/s
    Speed
    —

    vs Wan 3.0: −7.7 quality · 1.2× price

Overview

Lab
Alibaba Qwen
ByteDance Seed
Released
Aug 19, 2026
Jul 31, 2026
Weights
Proprietary
Proprietary
Price per second
1080p
$0.20Best
$0.23

Quality by category

0–100 within each category (100 = best tracked model). Rank is among all models ranked there. Click a row to focus it.

93.8±4.1Best
#3/34Verified
86.1±6.0
#5/34Verified

Video generation benchmarks

Rank among models with a published score, and the leaderboard around each model. ~ italic = no published score, estimated from related benchmarks.

VBench
day 0
—
—