Seedance vs Kling: picking by constraint, not by price

Both run through the same endpoint and bill in the same unit, so this comparison is exact rather than approximate.

Model	Credits per clip	Duration	Resolution	Aspect ratios
Seedance	25	3–15s	720p, 1080p	5
Kling	35	5 or 10s	1080p	3

Which to pick

• Variable-length output → Seedance. It accepts any integer from 3 to 15 seconds, while Kling only offers 5 or 10. Rounding up to a fixed bucket is a real overpay that the per-unit price does not show.

• Cheap iteration → Seedance. It has a 720p tier at exactly half price; Kling does not. If you burn attempts on prompt tuning, that halves the expensive part of the loop.

• Unusual aspect ratios → Seedance. It takes 16:9, 9:16, 1:1, 4:3, 3:4; Kling rejects 4:3, 3:4.

• Lowest cost per clip → Seedance, at 25 credits against 35. That is 1.40× — but read the rows above before treating it as the deciding factor.

What this page does not compare

Output quality. Nothing here measures which model looks better, and that is usually the decision that matters most. Treat the table as the constraint filter, then judge quality with your own prompts.

The full spec sheet and sample output for each sits on the model pages: Seedance · Kling.

Switching between them is a string

- "model": "seedance-2.0-fast"
+ "model": "kling-2.0-standard"

Same endpoint, same auth, same job semantics. Watch the constraints though — a duration_sec that works on one can fail validation on the other, returning 400 INVALID_PARAM.

Work out the cost at your own volume with the AI API cost comparison tool.

Models covered on this page

• Seedance 2.0
• Kling 2.0