Wan 3.0 or Seedance 2.5: which one for which brief

Pick Wan 3.0 when price, a 2-second minimum or a large reference set matters; pick Seedance 2.5 when you want ByteDance's long-take and referencing approach at up to 1080p. On Sume the two share the same endpoint, so you can run one prompt on both and compare.

Neither vendor page gives a quality benchmark we can cite, so the table sticks to numbers from the catalog.

Decision table

A simple test

ByteDance launched Seedance 2.5 on 2026-07-31; fal's Wan 3.0 page is the source for the Wan list rate.

• Same prompt, 480p, 8 seconds on both: about $0.50 and $2.15.
• Keep the winner, re-run at 720p.
• Save the job ids and cost fields for the team.

Budget scenarios

A 20-ad test of 10-second 720p clips costs $25.00 on Wan 3.0 and $115.56 on Seedance 2.5. A single 30-second hero spot is $3.75 versus $17.33.

Whatever you pick, spend the first dollars on a 480p draft.

What would change the answer

If a third-party benchmark or your own side-by-side shows Seedance 2.5 handles your references better, the premium may be worth it. If the clip is under 4 seconds, Wan is the only option of the two.