Egymásnak eresztették a Seedance 2.5 és Wan 3.0 videómodelleket

Seedance 2.5 from ByteDance and Wan 3.0 from Alibaba are two of the models on Krea that reach a full 30 seconds in one generation, both with native audio and image, video and audio references. On paper they look close. Seedance 2.5 accepts several times more references and adds a 21:9 ultrawide frame. Wan 3.0 costs about a third less per second, goes down to 2-second clips and lets you switch audio off. In our matched tests the split was clear. Wan 3.0 hit the most literal, dramatic version of a prompt (big flames, a high canal reveal) and rendered faster. Seedance 2.5 followed a directed action path that Wan ignored, and was the only one to deliver a 20-second “no cuts” prompt as a true single take. In October 2026 we ran three prompts through Seedance 2.5 and Wan 3.0 on Krea at 720p, 16:9, with the same seed: an 8-second speaking shot, an 8-second action shot and a 20-second three-beat one-take. We switched prompt rewriting off on both (Seedance prompt enhancement off, Wan prompt expansion off) and left Wan’s audio on, so each model saw exactly the prompt below. Each prompt ran once, so treat the results as a snapshot, not a benchmark. We checked dialogue by transcribing each clip with Whisper, used ffmpeg scene detection to count cuts, and measured the integrated loudness of each delivered audio mix. Render times are Krea job times from submit to finished file. Compute-unit (CU) figures are approximate, taken from Krea’s billing rates. The generate button shows the exact cost before every run. One take up to 30 seconds, native audio, and up to 50 references in a single generation. The first prompt asks for a scripted line to camera, then a physical beat with flames: Both models got the line exactly right. Whisper transcribed both clips as “30 years, same pan, same recipe.” Seedance 2.5 makes it a portrait. The camera sits low behind the wok, the vendor looks straight down the lens, and the background dissolves into hanging bulbs and steam. It reads as the more composed, cinematic frame. But it skips the fire: the clip ends on a big noodle toss toward the camera with no flames. Wan 3.0 plays it brighter and more literally. The vendor smiles into camera, delivers the line, and in the second half the wok erupts in tall, dramatic flames, exactly as written. It is the closer match to the prompt, set in a busier, well-lit night market. The audio mixes are very different. Wan’s measured -13.1 LUFS, about 10 dB louder than Seedance’s -23.4 LUFS. Wan’s track lands hot and upfront; Seedance’s sits back like a film mix. Neither is “better” by that number alone, but expect to turn Wan down in an edit. Wan rendered in 2 minutes 6 seconds, Seedance in 3 minutes 57 seconds. Verdict: Wan 3.0 on prompt fidelity, since it’s the only one that delivered the flames. Seedance 2.5 on look, if you prefer its moodier, direct-address framing. The second prompt asks for a subject to travel a specific path across the frame: Seedance 2.5 followed the geography. The rider enters from frame-left, ollies across the stairs, lands in a puff of dust and grit, and rides out to frame-right in low golden-hour sun. Its weakness is framing: the camera sits so low that the rider’s head and torso leave the top of the frame for part of the clip. Wan 3.0 delivered a clean, energetic trick, but a different shot. The rider comes toward the camera from the top of the stairs, ollies down the set and lands very close to the lens, in bright late-afternoon light rather than golden hour. Loudness again split: Wan at -10.9 LUFS, Seedance at -19.9 LUFS. Wan rendered in 2 minutes 19 seconds, Seedance in 4 minutes 24 seconds. Verdict: Seedance 2.5. When direction and screen geography matter, as in match cuts, product travel or choreography, Seedance did what was asked and Wan didn’t. Wan’s clip is still a strong skate shot if the direction doesn’t matter to you. Both models can run to 30 seconds, so we gave them a 20-second, three-beat scene and asked for no cut