Megaton
Megaton
#1
ByteDanceSeedance 2.0
#2
ByteDanceSeedance 2.0 Fast
#3
AlibabaHappyHorse-1.0
#3
KlingKling 3 Pro
#5
GoogleVeo 3

Swipe for more top models

AI video model comparison

Seedance 2.0 vs Veo 3.1 Fast

By Megaton TeamJuly 22, 2026

Seedance 2.0 is the better overall choice over Veo 3.1 Fast. It scores higher in every quality category shown.

Share
Seedance 2.0
Veo 3.1 Fast

“Try” links may be affiliate links — Megaton may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Learn more.

Our verdict

Seedance 2.0 is the better choice

Seedance 2.0 scores higher than Veo 3.1 Fast in every quality category shown. Its biggest lead is in 3D animation, and it also supports longer clips.

ByteDance

ByteDance

Seedance 2.0

73.0Overall score
Rank
#1
Price per minute
$9.07/min
Google DeepMind

Google DeepMind

Veo 3.1 Fast

51.0Overall score
Rank
#13
Price per minute
$6.00/min

Best for

Highest overall score

Seedance 2.0

Seedance 2.0 leads the overall score by 22.0 points.

The overall score does not measure file reliability.

Best for

More readable text

Seedance 2.0

Seedance 2.0 leads by 37.3 points.

Long or moving text still needs manual review.

Best for

Lower generation cost

Veo 3.1 Fast

Veo 3.1 Fast runs $6/min, against $9.07/min for Seedance 2.0.

Provider prices can change.

241
videos rated
6,869
measurements
964
ratings
July 22, 2026
last updated

Reviewer scores

Scores by category

Seedance 2.0 wins all 14 categories head-to-head. Each bar is the reviewer score out of 100.

Biggest gap3D Animation: Seedance 2.0 ahead by 67.5 points.
Closest categoryHands: Seedance 2.0 ahead by 5.4 points.

Head-to-head scores

14 categories rated head-to-head

Seedance 2.0Veo 3.1 Fast
Physics
68.3
45.7
Prompt Adherence
76.3
44.0
Logic Consistency
61.0
41.5
Scene Consistency
73.4
50.7
Cinematography
84.1
53.4
2D Animation
69.7
27.7
3D Animation
82.5
15.0
Anime Animation
78.0
54.3
Human
69.1
55.3
Hands
82.7
77.3
Actor Performance
86.0
56.3
Objects
63.3
57.6
Animals
78.0
55.1
Text Fidelity
85.0
47.7

Technical reliability

How reliably does each model deliver clean video?

These checks look for freezes, bad framing, compression problems, and unstable motion. They are kept separate from the reviewer scores above.

Seedance 2.0
120 videos rated · Jun 2026
Veo 3.1 Fast
121 videos rated · Jul 2026

File reliability checks

Playback, framing, and motion stability

Seedance 2.0Veo 3.1 Fast

Seedance 2.0's biggest lead: Motion stability, 76.0 versus 57.0.

Veo 3.1 Fast's biggest lead: Edge stability, 78.0 versus 72.0.

Technical cleanliness
70.0%
74.0%

Clips with no freezes, bad framing, or severe compression problems.

Freeze-free playback
96.0%
93.0%

Clips that play without stalls or frozen frames.

Clean framing
98.0%
92.0%

Clips without unexpected black bars or cropped edges.

Motion stability
76.0
57.0

How consistently surfaces hold their shape and texture while moving.

Edge stability
72.0
78.0

How consistently object outlines remain clean while moving.

Side-by-side video tests

Same prompt, side by side

Both videos in each row were generated from the prompt shown. Watch them side by side to compare how each model handled the same request.

Video test 1

Text

Spelling, letter shape, spacing, and whether the words remain stable while the scene moves.

Related category score

Seedance 2.0 leads here by 37.3 points.

Show the full prompt

Street-level Tokyo: kanji, hiragana, katakana everywhere. Shop signs, vending machines, posters we follow a woman walking down the street.

Text videos generated from the same prompt by Seedance 2.0 and Veo 3.1 Fast
Seedance 2.0
Veo 3.1 Fast

Video test 2

Physics

Weight, contact, momentum, and whether objects continue to behave consistently from frame to frame.

Related category score

Seedance 2.0 leads here by 22.6 points.

Show the full prompt

Close-up: a match strikes, flares to life, lights a candle. The match head, the flame birth, the wick catching. Material accuracy across wood, phosphorus, wax, fire.

Physics videos generated from the same prompt by Seedance 2.0 and Veo 3.1 Fast
Seedance 2.0
Veo 3.1 Fast

Video test 3

Cinematography

Framing, camera movement, lighting continuity, and whether the visual treatment follows the prompt.

Related category score

Seedance 2.0 leads here by 30.8 points.

Show the full prompt

One-take chase: camera leads a woman sprinting through a crowded market, she's looking back in fear, we never see what's chasing her. Handheld urgency, motivated motion, ducking under obstacles.

Cinematography videos generated from the same prompt by Seedance 2.0 and Veo 3.1 Fast
Seedance 2.0
Veo 3.1 Fast

Capabilities

Inputs and outputs

See full Seedance 2.0 detailsSee full Veo 3.1 Fast details
CapabilitySeedance 2.0Veo 3.1 Fast
Text inputYesYes
Image inputYesYes
Video inputYesYes
Audio inputYesNo
Image outputNoNo
Audio outputYesYes

FAQ

Common questions

Is Seedance 2.0 better than Veo 3.1 Fast?

Seedance 2.0 is better overall and scores higher in every quality category.

Is Seedance 2.0 cheaper than Veo 3.1 Fast?

Veo 3.1 Fast costs less at $6 per minute, compared with $9.07 for Seedance 2.0.

Does Seedance 2.0 generate audio?

Yes, Seedance 2.0 includes audio output.

Does Veo 3.1 Fast generate audio?

Yes, Veo 3.1 Fast includes audio output.

Which model makes longer clips, Seedance 2.0 or Veo 3.1 Fast?

Seedance 2.0 supports longer clips at 15 seconds, compared with 8 seconds for Veo 3.1 Fast.

Which model scores higher on 3D Animation, Seedance 2.0 or Veo 3.1 Fast?

Seedance 2.0 scores higher for 3D animation.

Which model scores higher on 2D Animation, Seedance 2.0 or Veo 3.1 Fast?

Seedance 2.0 scores higher for 2D animation.

How are Seedance 2.0 and Veo 3.1 Fast compared?

Megaton gives both models the same prompts and compares the resulting videos. Price, audio support, and maximum clip length are also checked.

More comparisons

More AI video model comparisons

Browse more head-to-head results, including scores, prices, and side-by-side video tests.

Other AI video model comparison pages
ComparisonProvidersOverall scores
Seedance 2.0 vs Seedance 2.0 FastByteDanceByteDance73.0 / 70.0
Seedance 2.0 vs HappyHorse-1.0ByteDanceAlibaba73.0 / 62.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Kling 3 ProByteDanceKling73.0 / 62.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Kling 2.6ByteDanceKling73.0 / 60.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Veo 3ByteDanceGoogle73.0 / 60.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Grok Imagine 1.0ByteDancexai73.0 / 58.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Veo 2ByteDanceGoogle73.0 / 56.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Veo 3.1ByteDanceGoogle73.0 / 56.0
Seedance 2.0 vs PixVerse v5.5ByteDancePixVerse73.0 / 55.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Grok 2025ByteDancexai73.0 / 54.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Seedance 1.5 ProByteDanceByteDance73.0 / 53.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Sora 2 ProByteDanceOpenAI73.0 / 50.0
Kling 3 Pro vs Veo 3.1 FastKlingGoogle62.0 / 51.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Veo 3 FastByteDanceGoogle73.0 / 48.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Vidu Q2ByteDanceVidu73.0 / 45.0
Kling 2.6 vs Veo 3.1 FastKlingGoogle60.0 / 51.0
Seedance 2.0 vs LTX-2 19BByteDanceLightricks73.0 / 43.0
Veo 3 vs Veo 3.1 FastGoogleGoogle60.0 / 51.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Gen-4.5ByteDanceRunway73.0 / 40.0
Grok Imagine 1.0 vs Veo 3.1 FastxaiGoogle58.0 / 51.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Pika v2.2 Text-to-VideoByteDancePika73.0 / 26.0
Seedance 2.0 vs Infinity StarByteDanceFoundationVision73.0 / 24.0
Veo 2 vs Veo 3.1 FastGoogleGoogle56.0 / 51.0
Veo 3.1 vs Veo 3.1 FastGoogleGoogle56.0 / 51.0
PixVerse v5.5 vs Veo 3.1 FastPixVerseGoogle55.0 / 51.0
Grok 2025 vs Veo 3.1 FastxaiGoogle54.0 / 51.0
Seedance 1.5 Pro vs Veo 3.1 FastByteDanceGoogle53.0 / 51.0
Veo 3.1 Fast vs Sora 2 ProGoogleOpenAI51.0 / 50.0
Veo 3.1 Fast vs Veo 3 FastGoogleGoogle51.0 / 48.0
Veo 3.1 Fast vs Vidu Q2GoogleVidu51.0 / 45.0
Veo 3.1 Fast vs LTX-2 19BGoogleLightricks51.0 / 43.0
Veo 3.1 Fast vs Gen-4.5GoogleRunway51.0 / 40.0

Methodology

How we tested Seedance 2.0 and Veo 3.1 Fast

We score two things separately: how good the video looks to a reviewer, and how reliably the file itself holds up. A model can make great-looking footage and still deliver clips with freezes, bad framing, or unstable motion.

Reviewer scores
Both models receive the same prompts. Professional reviewers score how well each video follows the prompt and handles motion, composition, people, objects, animals, animation, and on-screen text. Scores use a 0-100 scale.
File reliability
Automated checks review 241 clips for freezes, bad framing, compression problems, unstable motion, distorted geometry, exposure problems, and invalid file properties.
Missing scores
Categories with a score for only one model are shown but excluded from the head-to-head win count. Price and generation speed stay separate because they use different units.
Last updated
Reviewer scores and rankings use results from July 22, 2026. Reliability results use the latest completed test for each model. Provider prices and rankings can change.
View the complete leaderboardCompare more outputs in the Arena