FLUX 3 Video vs Wan 3.0 vs Seedance 2.5: Comparison

👁 124 reads

FLUX 3 Video, Wan 3.0, and Seedance 2.5 are three models from the top six of the Artificial Analysis text-to-video leaderboard that you can access via API today. I compared them across five identical test scenes from my Video Arena, ran an image-to-video generation test on the same base photo, and examined their per-minute pricing. In short: FLUX 3 and Wan 3.0 run neck and neck, while Seedance 2.5 fell significantly behind in my benchmark rounds, despite sitting higher than FLUX on the AA leaderboard. For a standalone breakdown of the BFL model, see my guide to FLUX 3 Video.

Key Takeaways

• Artificial Analysis ranking: Wan 3.0 ranks 1st (Elo 1156), Seedance 2.5 ranks 3rd (1143), FLUX 3 ranks 6th (1128).
• Arena benchmark (5 scenes): FLUX 3 scored 8.9/10, Wan 3.0 scored 8.8/10, and Seedance 2.5 scored 5.6/10.
• Cost per minute via AA: Wan 3.0 is $12.00, FLUX 3 is $17.40, and Seedance 2.5 is $34.12.
• Multilingual handling: FLUX 3 and Wan 3.0 render non-English text and speech cleanly; Seedance 2.5 recorded a 0.583 Word Error Rate on speech in our Polish-language evaluation scene.
• Maximum clip duration: Wan 3.0 and Seedance 2.5 generate up to 30 s; FLUX 3 caps at 20 s.

Artificial Analysis Leaderboard

Data retrieved from AA-Video-T2V v2.0 and AA-Video-I2V v1.0 on October 11, 2026. Only Wan 3.0 appears in the current I2V table; ByteDance is represented there by the older Seedance 2.0 720p (5th place, 1176).

Video Arena: Identical Prompts, Single-Pass Generations

I evaluated Wan 3.0 and Seedance 2.5 on October 8 (at 480p via OpenRouter) and FLUX 3 on October 11 (at 720p, as no lower resolution is offered). All clips were generated at 5 seconds in 16:9 widescreen, without cherry-picking. Note that we tested speech and text rendering using Polish-language prompts; the Seedance 2.5 spoken-dialogue score comes from an identical evaluation pass on September 28.

Wan 3.0 also scored a perfect 10/10 on the text scene; all remaining clips can be viewed in the full Video Arena.

Same Base Photo, Two Models: Image-to-Video

I animated the exact same cafe interior render (from my FLUX 3 Image interior design benchmark) using identical instructions on FLUX 3 and Seedance 2.5 via fal.ai, generating 5-second outputs with native audio generation enabled.

The camera slowly dollies forward through the cafe toward the curved terracotta counter. The barista behind the counter grinds coffee, a customer walks past the counter, the woman at the left table lifts her cup and laughs with her friend. The pendant lamps hang still. Sound: cafe ambience, a coffee grinder, soft chatter, cups clinking. Realistic, natural motion, no text.

• FLUX 3: Clean, controlled dolly forward toward the counter, a customer walks across frame, the barista operates the grinder, and the image remains tack sharp. Downside: set to “auto” aspect ratio, it cropped the source image framing slightly.
• Seedance 2.5: Gentler camera push-in, and the seated woman accurately sips from her mug as directed. However, the 480p output is visibly soft, and one of the two patrons at the left table suddenly vanishes mid-clip.
• Cost: fal.ai bills Seedance 2.5 tokens at $0.0214 per thousand, roughly double OpenRouter’s rate. Consequently, a 5-second 480p generation cost $1.06 - more than twice the price of FLUX 3 at 720p.

API Pricing Breakdown

Seedance calculates cost based on video tokens: width x height x frame count / 1024. A 5-second clip at 720p translates to roughly 108,900 tokens. For calculation details, see my Seedance guide. For a broader comparison, check my complete breakdown of AI video generation costs per second.

Feature Comparison

Which Model Should You Choose?

• FLUX 3 Video - Best for commercial deliverables where pristine on-screen typography and accurate lip-synced speech are mandatory without secondary clean-up; most economical via fal.ai.
• Wan 3.0 - Highest overall visual fidelity per dollar, support for extended takes up to 30 seconds, and direct ingestion of PDF reference documents.
• Seedance 2.5 - Complex productions requiring extensive conditioning (characters, props, vocal tracks) and surgical timestamp-based inpainting. Avoid it if you need reliable non-English speech synthesis.

Other top-tier models worth monitoring: Utopai X (ranked 2nd, no public API), MiniMax H3 Max, Gemini Omni Flash, and SkyReels V4.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is FLUX 3 Video better than Wan 3.0?

In our benchmark Arena, they finished in a virtual dead heat (8.9 vs 8.8). On the public AA leaderboard, Wan sits at #1 while FLUX holds #6. Wan is generally cheaper and delivers longer continuous takes, whereas FLUX offers a high-speed draft mode and superior multi-language typographic fidelity.

Why did Seedance 2.5 score lower in your arena than on Artificial Analysis?

The AA leaderboard evaluates broad visual aesthetic preference primarily across English prompts, often at higher base resolutions. My benchmark specifically stresses complex multi-language phonetics, non-Latin diacritics, and difficult fluid mechanics at 480p, exposing edge-case generation weaknesses.

Which model is the most affordable?

Wan 3.0 is the price leader at $0.05 per second for 480p, averaging $12.00 per minute on AA’s reference metrics. FLUX 3 deployed via fal.ai offers strong value at $0.085 per second for native 720p.

// read moreAI Video Arena: Wan 3.0, Kling, Seedance, Veo, H3, and Runway ComparedBenchmarksHappyHorse 1.1 vs Wan 3.0 vs Seedance 2.5 vs MiniMax H3 MaxBenchmarksFLUX 3 Product Photography: 10 AI Ads & PackshotsBenchmarks