Veo 3.1 Fast vs Sora 2
Sora 2 is cheaper on each of the 2 renders both models price. Sora 2 runs to 12s in one call against 8s.
AI video models · 12 head-to-head pages
AI video model comparisons
We run 12 video models inside one studio, on our own provider accounts, off one credit balance. That is the only reason these comparisons exist: every number below is our own billing and capability data for both models in the pair, so nothing here depends on a vendor's marketing page or on a reviewer who has run one of the two.
It also means we have nothing to sell you on. Whichever model you pick, it spends the same credits from the same plan, so there is no version of this page where steering you costs us less. What you will not find is a quality ranking: we hold no benchmark that would make one honest, so every claim here is a capability or a credit price you can check against the tables.
Every matchup
A shortlist, not a matrix. 12 models make 66 possible pairings and most of them are not a decision anyone faces, so these 12are the ones we chose to write, in the order we put them in. Each summary underneath is computed from the two models’ specs and prices, so it changes when they do.
Veo 3.1 Fast vs Kling 3.0
No shared clip length, so the comparison is credits per second at a shared resolution: Veo 3.1 Fast is the better rate at 720p and 1080p (30 against 41.5 at 720p). Kling 3.0 runs to 15s in one call against 8s.
Kling 3.0 vs Seedance 2.0
The price splits on resolution: Kling 3.0 is cheaper at 1080p and 4K, Seedance 2.0 at 720p. Seedance 2.0 carries up to 9 reference images into one render against 7.
Sora 2 vs Kling 3.0
No shared clip length, so the comparison is credits per second at a shared resolution: Sora 2 is the better rate at 1080p (20 against 52 at 1080p). Kling 3.0 runs to 15s in one call against 12s.
Veo 3.1 Fast vs Seedance 2.0
No shared clip length. Per second at a shared resolution the answer flips: Veo 3.1 Fast is the better rate at 1080p, Seedance 2.0 at 720p. Seedance 2.0 runs to 15s in one call against 8s.
Seedance 2.0 vs Seedance 1.5
Seedance 1.5 is cheaper on the one render both models price. Seedance 2.0 runs to 15s in one call against 12s.
Kling 2.6 vs Kling 3.0
Kling 2.6 is cheaper on each of the 4 renders both models price. Kling 3.0 runs to 15s in one call against 10s.
Sora 2 vs Sora 2 Pro
Sora 2 is cheaper on each of the 3 renders both models price. Sora 2 prices 1080p, Sora 2 Pro 720p and 1080p.
OmniHuman 1.5 vs Happy Horse 1.1
The price splits on resolution: OmniHuman 1.5 is cheaper at 1080p, Happy Horse 1.1 at 720p. OmniHuman 1.5 runs to 30s in one call against 15s.
Veo 3.1 Fast vs Happy Horse 1.1
No shared clip length. Per second at a shared resolution the answer flips: Veo 3.1 Fast is the better rate at 1080p, Happy Horse 1.1 at 720p. Happy Horse 1.1 runs to 15s in one call against 8s.
Kling 3.0 vs Happy Horse 1.1
Happy Horse 1.1 is cheaper on each of the 6 renders both models price. Only Kling 3.0 prices a 4K tier.
Grok Video vs Veo 3.1 Fast
No shared clip length, so the comparison is credits per second at a shared resolution: Grok Video is the better rate at 720p (14 against 30 at 720p). Grok Video runs to 10s in one call against 8s.
The 12 models behind these pages
Every model we sell has its own page with the full priced table: each clip length, each resolution and what it costs. Start at the model index for the whole catalogue side by side.
How to read a comparison here
- Prices are in credits, per render. What a credit costs depends on the plan, and all three are on the pricing page. Credits are the honest unit here because the cost of a render changes with the model, the length and the resolution.
- Only identical renders are compared. A price row appears when both models sell the same clip length at the same resolution. When they never do, the page says so and compares credits per second at a resolution both models do price, which is the closest honest like-for-like there is.
- Durations are per render. A maximum duration is what one call returns, not the length of a finished ad. Longer ads are several renders cut together.
- Announced end dates matter. When a vendor has published a shutdown date for a model, the comparison shows it, because standardising an ad workflow on an endpoint that disappears is an expensive surprise.
- There is no quality column. We do not hold benchmark data, so we do not publish one. Test two models on the same script and judge for yourself.
Model comparisons: frequently asked questions
Are these comparisons independent?
They are first-party rather than independent, and that turns out to be the useful part. We sell every model on this page, so we have no reason to talk you out of any of them: they all bill the same credit balance, and whichever one you render on, we are paid the same way. What we do have is the provider bill and the capability record for all 12, which is data a reviewer who runs none of them cannot get.
Where do the credit costs and specs come from?
From the same two tables the product itself runs on: the price table that debits your balance when a render finishes, and the model registry the generator reads to build each request. These pages are generated from those tables at build time, so a reprice, a new resolution tier or a vendor retirement rewrites the comparison rather than leaving a stale number behind.
Why do some comparisons have no like-for-like price table?
Because the two models do not sell the same render. Some price clips at 4, 6 and 8 seconds and others at 5, 10 and 15, so there is no row where both quote a price for the same thing. Putting a 5 second render next to a 15 second one and calling the gap a price difference is the most common way these comparisons mislead. Those pages compare credits per second at a resolution both models do price instead, which is a real like-for-like unit, and print each model's full tier list underneath.
Which model is the best quality?
We do not answer that, because we hold no benchmark that would make the answer honest. Nobody publishes a trustworthy cross-model quality score for ad creative, and output quality depends heavily on your reference image and your prompt. Everything we compare here is checkable: maximum duration, priced resolutions, whether the model needs a reference image, whether it generates its own audio, whether the vendor has announced an end date, and what a render costs in credits. Render the same script on two models and judge the picture yourself.
How many video models do you run?
12 at the moment, from Alibaba, ByteDance, Google, Kuaishou, OpenAI, Pruna, VEED and xAI. The cheapest render in the catalogue is 50 credits on Grok Video, and the longest single clip is 120 seconds on VEED Fabric 1.0. 12 models make 66 possible pairings, so rather than generate all of them we picked 12 to write properly, and the rest of the catalogue is covered model by model on the model index.
Do I need a different plan to use a different model?
No. Every plan is a single credit balance that spends on any model in the catalogue, so you can run the same script through two models and compare them on your own product without buying anything twice. There is no per-model licence, and on a paid plan credits are the only thing that runs out rather than a render count. A render's cost depends on the model, the length and the resolution, which is what these pages are for.
Can I try these models on the free trial?
6 of the 12 run inside the free 3-day trial: Grok Video, Happy Horse 1.1, Kling 2.6, Pruna Avatar, Seedance 1.5 and Veo 3.1 Fast. The rest need a paid plan, either because the trial does not carry them or because their cheapest render sits above the trial's per-render credit ceiling. Every matchup page says which of its two models the trial will actually run, so you find out here rather than at the Generate button.
Do these credit prices change?
They can, when a provider changes its wholesale rate or adds a tier. When that happens the price table changes, and because every page here is generated from it, the comparison, the verdict and the FAQ answers all move together on the next deploy. That is the whole reason these pages are built this way rather than written by hand.