Why Seedance 2.5 costs 4.6x Wan 3.0 per second at 720p

Seedance 2.5 at 720p costs $0.578 per second on Sume and Wan 3.0 costs $0.125, a ratio of 4.62. The vendor lists differ by the same factor: fal bills Seedance 2.5 by token ($0.0214 per 1,000) and Wan 3.0 by the second ($0.10 at 720p), both read 2026-10-09.

Where do 21,600 tokens per second come from?

fal's formula is width x height x seconds x 24 / 1024. At 1280 x 720 that is 21,600 tokens for every second of video. At $0.0214 per 1,000 tokens that is $0.4622 per second at list, and $0.5778 at Sume's list x 1.25. Wan 3.0 at 720p is $0.10 list and $0.125 on Sume.

Does the gap hold at other tiers?

The 1080p Seedance rate uses the $0.0234 per 1,000 tokens value from Sume's pricing code.

What is the extra money buying?

I do not rank quality here. The docs describe different input sets: Seedance 2.5 takes 4 to 30 seconds and Wan 3.0 takes 2 to 30, and both accept audio and video references. So the price gap is not explained by inputs; run the same prompt on both and judge the result.

How do I decide?

• Run the same 5-second prompt on both: $2.889 on Seedance 2.5 vs $0.625 on Wan 3.0 at 720p.
• Keep the cheaper model for drafts and use the dearer one only when the draft shows a gap you would pay for.
• Re-check both pages before a large batch, since list rates can change.

What does the gap cost on a real batch?

Take 100 clips of 8 seconds at 720p. On Seedance 2.5 that is $462.24; on Wan 3.0 it is $100.00, a difference of $362.24. If the better of the two models lets you accept the first take where the other needs two, the extra spend may disappear, which is why the test comes first.

Both numbers are list x 1.25, from fal's rates read 2026-10-09 and the pixel formula above.