Alibaba's Sora 2, Veo 3.1, Kling 3.0 migration table vs Sume ids

Alibaba's Model Studio page maps closed-source Sora 2, Veo 3.1 and Kling 3.0 text-to-video and image-to-video use to happyhorse-1.1-t2v and happyhorse-1.1-i2v. Of the models on that page, only Wan 3.0 has a Sume catalog id (wan-3.0); no HappyHorse id appears in the Sume video catalog list.

Mapping is from the Alibaba page, read 2026-10-01. Sume ids are from Video Router.

What does Alibaba's migration table say?

Alibaba's recommendation depends on the task. Its Wan 3.0 entries are listed separately as general recommended models with their own use cases.

Which of these ids exist on Sume?

The Sume catalog lists seedance-2.5, seedance-2-mini, seedance-2, seedance-2-fast, kling-3, wan-3.0 and several others. wan-3.0 accepts 2 to 30 seconds at 480p, 720p and 1080p, which matches the range Alibaba lists for wan3.0-video. The Alibaba id spelling differs (wan3.0-video against wan-3.0), so use the Sume spelling in requests. Sume lists kling-3 directly, so a Kling 3.0 workload does not need a substitute there.

For how Wan 3.0 is exposed on another platform, see Wan 3.0 on Runway vs the Sume id.

How do I avoid pinning a model at all?

Send model: "sume/auto" on POST /v1/videos and Sume picks the model. When you need an explicit pass-through id, use Video Router and pick from the catalog; read the capabilities of each row instead of assuming one envelope.

What should I check before migrating?

Compare length first: HappyHorse is listed at 3 to 15 seconds, while wan-3.0 and seedance-2.5 reach 30. Then check resolution, aspect ratio and audio on the catalog row. A model that is not in the Sume catalog cannot be requested through Sume, whatever the vendor table recommends.