Skip to content
OMNI Labs
WorkLookbookMusicJournal
TalentMethodCertificationWardrobe
BuildAutomationEmbodimentAutonomyPen
Contact
Creative AI Production Studio
OMNI Labs
01Home02Work03Lookbook04Music05Journal
StudioTalentMethodCertificationWardrobe
LabBuildAutomationEmbodimentPen
06Contact
hello@omnilabs.studioIstanbul · Global

Start a project →

© OMNI Labs · Creative AI Production Studio

← Journal
  1. Home
  2. Journal
AI Video Production

Kling 4.0 vs Seedance 2.5: Cost per Second and What Each Gets Wrong

Kling 4.0 really is less than half the price of Seedance 2.5 on the same platform. What the price comparison leaves out is the three default behaviours you have to prompt against, and the question nobody has answered yet: faces.

OMNI Labs23 Oct 2026Updated 25 Oct 2026

Keyframe from the OMNI Labs ÉTAT film made with Kling 4.0: a model in a black top and white trousers walks a greyhound through a sunlit living room

On this page

  1. The short answer
  2. What each model costs per second
  3. The three defaults Kling 4.0 adds to every clip
  4. Two ways in, and you cannot use both
  5. Where each model is stronger
  6. What we have not tested yet: faces
  7. How we route shots between them

Key takeaways

  • On the same platform, Kling 4.0 costs 190 credits per second at 720p against 440 for Seedance 2.5 — 43% of the price. At 1080p it is 280 against 790, or 35%.
  • A 10-second 720p clip is 1,900 credits on Kling 4.0 and 4,400 on Seedance 2.5. Through an API we paid $4.62 for the Seedance clip.
  • Kling 4.0 adds background music, burns in subtitles and cuts on its own unless the prompt rules out all three.
  • Kling is the stronger model for kinetic action, liquids and fast product rotation; Seedance held product geometry and binds a voice to each line of dialogue.
  • We have not yet tested Kling 4.0 on our synthetic faces. Until we have, identity-critical shots stay on Seedance 2.5.

The short answer

Kling 4.0 is the cheaper model by a wide margin, and the gap is real rather than a launch promotion: on the same platform it costs 43% of Seedance 2.5 at 720p and 35% at 1080p. It is also longer — up to 30 seconds in one take — and better at fast, physical motion.

Seedance 2.5 is the model we trust with faces and dialogue. It held product geometry where Kling smoothed it, and it binds a voice reference to each spoken line.

So we do not pick one. We draft motion and framing on Kling, and render identity-critical finals on Seedance. The rest of this piece is the evidence behind that split.

What each model costs per second

Most comparisons quote list prices from different platforms, which makes the numbers meaningless side by side. These are read back from the same platform's cost simulator on the same day, so the ratio holds even if the credit price changes.

Price per second on the same platform (credits) · measured 21 Oct 2026
Model480p720p1080p10 s at 720p
Kling 4.0—1902801,900
Seedance 2.52004407904,400
Kling 3.0 (reference)—70—700
Read back from the platform's cost simulator. Price is linear in duration; aspect ratio and a character reference do not change it.

In dollars, through APIs we pay on our own invoices: Seedance 2.5 at 720p cost $0.4622 per second, so a 10-second clip is $4.62. A 6-second 720p Kling 4.0 test clip cost $0.47, about $0.08 per second.

One caution in the other direction: Kling 4.0 is 2.7 times the price of Kling 3.0. If your shot does not need what 4.0 adds, the older model is still the cheap option.

The three defaults Kling 4.0 adds to every clip

Kling 4.0 makes three decisions on your behalf unless you tell it not to:

  • It scores the clip. Background music is generated by default.
  • It burns in subtitles on spoken lines.
  • It cuts. Its multi-shot storyboard mode is on by default and has no toggle, so a single-shot brief can come back as an edit.

We write against all three in every prompt: "SFX only, no music, no score", "no subtitles", and "one continuous shot, no cuts". The first two hold. The third reduces cuts but does not guarantee a single take, so budget for a re-render when a shot must be continuous.

warning

A single missing exclusion costs a full re-render. Keep the three lines in your prompt template, not in your memory.

Two ways in, and you cannot use both

Kling 4.0 has two entry points that cannot be combined in one job:

  • Omni Reference takes images, videos and voice profiles — this is where a face reference goes.
  • Keyframes takes start and end images (up to ten keyframes) and locks composition, but accepts no reference assets.

That means "lock the first frame exactly and hold this face and use this voice" is not one render. Decide which matters more for the shot: identity through a reference, or exact composition through keyframes.

Duration is the other structural difference. Kling 4.0 renders 3 to 30 seconds in one-second steps, so long single takes are its territory.

Where each model is stronger

On our product work the difference was concrete. On a macro shot of a shoe, Kling smoothed the tread pattern — detail that matters when the product is the point. Seedance held product geometry across cuts.

Kling earns its place on shots where motion is the subject: kinetic action, liquids and splashes, fast product rotation, and long continuous takes.

Seedance 2.5 is where dialogue goes. It accepts a voice reference and binds it to each quoted line, which is what keeps a voice consistent across a scene.

What we have not tested yet: faces

The most important question for anyone working with synthetic talent is whether Kling 4.0 holds a face across a turn of the head, and how its moderation treats a synthetic face reference. We have not tested that yet, and we found no measured answer elsewhere.

Until we have, our rule is simple: probe one shot per face before committing a sequence to Kling 4.0. A single 10-second test at 720p costs 1,900 credits. A failed sequence costs far more.

How we route shots between them

In practice the two models do different jobs in the same production:

  1. Draft on Kling 4.0. Block motion, framing and timing at less than half the price.
  2. Final on Seedance 2.5 for any shot where a face or a product's exact shape has to hold, and for every line of dialogue.
  3. Keep Kling for finals where motion is the subject and no face carries the shot.

We will update this page when our face tests on Kling 4.0 are done.

Sources

  1. PixVerse: Kling 4 vs Seedance 2.5
  2. Picsart: Kling 4.0 vs Seedance 2.5
OMNI Labs is a creative AI production studio.Everything in the Journal comes from our own productions and tests.Start a project

Related

  • Split-diopter still from OMNI Dramas episode 1: a woman in a satin slip in the foreground and a man in a tuxedo behind her, both in focus

    guide25 Oct 2026

    How to Prompt Seedance 2.5 for Dialogue Scenes

    Two synthetic characters, two voices, two lines — and the right mouth moved for each on the first try. The structure that made it work, and the failures that taught us each rule.

  • Beauty close-up of synthetic model Milena Lindqvist: pale skin with freckles and fine texture, side-lit

    test25 Oct 2026

    Upscaling AI Video Without Plastic Skin

    The upscaler with the best sharpness score was the one a producer rejected. Here is what we tested, what each one did to faces and products, and how to check an upscale properly.

  • Still from the OMNI Labs GRAUWALD film: a small figure at the foot of a giant pine in a white, fog-filled forest

    guide20 Oct 2026

    MiniMax H3 Needs a Schema, Not Prose

    We rewrote a camera move and the walk direction and got a byte-identical video. We changed only the seed and got a different film. What H3 actually listens to, measured on a local 16 GB GPU.