Compare AI generators video From their home pages, it's like comparing trailers: each publisher shows its best print. To find out what each model really gives, there is only one method: one quick, the same settings, and we're looking at. This is what we did on October 27, 2026 with five models assembled in Higgsfield : Kling 3.0, Seedance 2.5. Google Veo 3.1, Wan 3.0 and Grok Imagine 1.5.
The chosen scene is deliberately ungrateful: a glass of red wine that swings slowly on marble, a candle behind. Liquid, transparent glass, reflections, a background to blur. This is the kind of plan where a weak model betrays itself in a second. The five clips read lower, with the exact price paid in credits for each.
Clips generated on 27.10.2026 on a Ultra package offered for a month by the publisher, who did not read this article again. This page contains partner links.
Contents: Essential · The result in one video · The Protocol · Kling 3.0 · Seedance 2.5 · Veo 3.1 · Wan 3.0 · Grok Imagine 1.5 · The table · What model for which use · Other clips · The limits of the test · Retest · FAQ
Essentials
- The five clips cost 113.75 credits in total. Cheapest: Kling 3.0 to 7.5 credits. Most expensive: Veo 3.1 to 40 credits, for only 4 seconds.
- Reported to the second: Kling 1.5 credit, Wan 1.75, Grok 4.5, Seedance 7, Veo 10.
- Seedance 2.5 best describes the scene (scratch, wine fillet, splash crown, blurred candles). Veo 3.1 signs the most spectacular splash.
- Grok Imagine 1.5 showed the glass already laid in the puddle: The toggle action is almost absent from our draw.
- One draw per model. This test gives a trend, not a definitive ranking.
- Price trap: Kling 3.0 opens in 4K at 30 credits per 5 seconds, compared to 7.5 in 720p.
The result in one video
Here are the five clips side by side, assembled by us from the five generated files (without sound, 6 seconds). Veo's video, which lasts only 4 seconds, remains frozen on his last image. The models, durations and credits are written in each box.
Protocol: one quick, five models, one chance each
We wrote the prompt in English, the language in which these models are most often documented, then we sent it as it is, without retouching from one model to another:
A glass of red wine tips over on a white marble table in extreme slow motion, wine splashing into a crown shape, a candle flame flickering behind it, macro Lens, slow depth of field, warm cinematic lighting, photorealistic
We requested 720p and 16:9 wherever the setting existed, only one generation per model, and we recorded the balance of credits before and after each launch with the editor connector: the debit corresponds exactly to the price displayed on the button « Generate ». Where the interface offered the automatic improvement of the prompt (Kling and Veo), we cut it, if not the tool Rewrite your text. Seedance, Wan and Grok did not make this adjustment.
| Model | Duration | Resolution | Format | Its | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kling 3.0 (Std) | 5 s | 720p | 16:9 | Cut | Improving the prompt cut |
| Seedance 2.5 | 5 s | 720p | 16:9 | Cut | Bitrate « High » (default) |
| Google Veo 3.1 | 4 s | 720p | 16:9 | Native Audio | Possible durations: 4, 6 or 8 seconds, we took the shortest |
| Wan 3.0 | 5 s | 720p | Auto | Cut | Actual output in 1280 x 720 |
| Grok Imagine 1.5 | 5 s | 720p | Auto | Native Audio | No format settings displayed, output 1280 x 720 |
What is therefore not not the same duration of Veo (4 seconds instead of 5 seconds), the format left in « car » for Wan and Grok, and the presence of an audio track at Veo and Grok. We repeat this in the final table, because these differences count when comparing prices.
Kling 3.0: the cheapest, and the freest with the text
7.5 credits for 5 seconds, i.e. 1.5 credit per second: this is the cheapest entry point in the series. What we see on the clip images: a hand appears at the top of the frame and pours the glass instead of letting it rock. The wine falls, draws a very sharp circular crown on the marble, then the glass comes out of the image. The candle remains much sharper than at home. Seedance, while the prompt demanded a low depth of field.
It's pretty, very « advertising image », and the wine crown is literal. But the story departs from the text: nobody had spoken with one hand. For test a plan idea without burning his pay, it's a good reflex. To illustrate the promptness of the letter, this printout is not enough.
Seedance 2.5: the most faithful to the story, but 35 credits
35 credits per 5 seconds, 7 credits per second. In our images, the glass gradually toggle, a net of wine flows on the table, and a splash crown appears towards the end of the clip (around 3.9 seconds). The candles are in soft blur, the depth of field is that of the prompt. It is the only one of the five that respects both the tilt, the extreme slow down and the macro.
His fault is his price: nearly five times that of Kling for the same duration. Another useful detail: cutting the sound did not change the debit, 35 credits with or without. If you want to see this model on other scenes, our review on Seedance details the access and rates of the previous generation.
Veo 3.1: the most spectacular splash, for 4 seconds
40 credits for 4 seconds. 10 credits per second, the highest rate of the test. The glass is already lying from the first image, the wine swings, then large splashes start in the air between the second and third seconds. Dark background, strong contrast, rendered cinema: it is the scene that « click » Most, with a premium audio track.
The reverse is duration. The interface offers 4, 6 or 8 seconds, and the button had 80 credits for 8 seconds in 720p. There is also a variant « Fast » We tried lower on a vertical plane, 16 credits per 4 seconds.
Wan 3.0: a credible splash for 8.75 credits
8.75 credits debited, while the button displayed « 9 » with a « 13 » Barred: a promotion in progress on the day of the test. That's 1.75 credit the second. The glass swings from the foot, falls, and a splash in crown appears on the right with many small, well separated drops, the candle remains visible behind the glass. It is the drawing whose realism/price ratio surprised us most.
Wan is an open model, often cited for its price and variants. Our Wan AI file provides an update on versions 2.5 to 3.0 and their free access.
Grok Imagine 1.5: action is already over
22.5 credits, or 4.5 credits per second. From the first image, the glass is placed in a red puddle that slowly spreads. We see the rest of the accident, not the accident. The rendering is clear, the reflections of the marble are convincing and the candle is there, but for this quick accurate, it is the least faithful print to the text. A single generation is not enough to judge the model: on a simple speed, the result could be quite different.
The table: credits, seconds and fidelity to the prompt
| Model | Credits | Duration | Appropriations per second | Faithfulness in the prompt (our reading) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kling 3.0 | 7,5 | 5 s | 1,5 | Average: Clear crown, but hand pours glass and candle remains clear |
| Wan 3.0 | 8,75 | 5 s | 1,75 | Good: tilting, splashing in crown, fine drops |
| Grok Imagine 1.5 | 22,5 | 5 s | 4,5 | Low: the glass is already in the puddle |
| Seedance 2.5 | 35 | 5 s | 7 | Very good: tilting, netting, crown, blurred, slowed |
| Veo 3.1 | 40 | 4 s | 10 | Very good: big splashes, made cinema, very short |
To put these prices back in time, our Table generators video AI compares maximum durations and competition rates. Column « Loyalty » is our reading from five images extracted from each clip, not a measured score.
What model for which use?
This test does not designate a universal winner, but it allows to store models by reflex of use, provided to keep in mind that it rests on a single scene:
- Test ideas without emptying the balance: Kling 3.0 (7.5 credits in 720p, 8.75 in 1080p) or Wan 3.0 (8.75 on test day).
- A plan where the narrative must follow the prompt to the letter, slow down: Seedance 2.5, accepting 35 credits per 5 seconds.
- A plan that must impress in 4 seconds: Veo 3.1, knowing that 8 seconds cost 80 credits.
- A long plan: Kling 4.0, tested below: 10 seconds in 1080p for 20 credits at the displayed price (40 bars).
- Grok Imagine 1.5: to try on a simpler prompt before making an opinion.
The other clips in the series: what 8,75 credits in 1080 p
Same session, same count. After the protocol, we launched other plans to see what Kling 3.0 gives in 1080p: 8.75 credits per 5 seconds, barely more than 720p (7.5). Each legend indicates the exact model, duration, resolution, price and prompt.
The flying whale and the fisherman's portrait are the two planes that convinced us most about the images extracted: credible light, legible skin grain, clean composition. Neon alley looks good « film ». For these three plans, we only examined one image per clip: look at them in motion before you get an idea.
This plan is here for one reason: not all tests succeed. The prompt requested a bottle of luxury perfume; The image extracted shows a glass of golden liquid with bubbles on a reflective black tray, not an identifiable bottle. For product advertising, you have to start from a real photo of the product (the image to video exists on Higgsfield, we have already tested in our review complete) rather than describing the object.
Two vertical planes for Shorts and Reels
The 9:16 format is set directly in the format selector, without cropping: the output was in 1080 x 1920 for Kling and in 720 x 1280 for Veo Fast. For 8,75 and 16 credits, it is a reasonable cost if you feed a chain of Shorts.
A 10-second plan and a sound scene
Two last tests, to cover the duration and the sound. Kling 4.0 offers 10 seconds in 1080p: the button had 20 credits, with 40 bars, i.e. 2 credits per second, the best duration/price ratio of the whole series. Seedance 2.5 served for a stage with a sound atmosphere, at the same price as without sound (35 credits). We only extracted one image from each clip: we do not detail the movement.
Three settings that change the bill: the 4K, the draft and the starting image
After the protocol, we measured three functions that the interface puts forward. The prizes are those displayed by Higgsfield on October 27, 2026, for 5 seconds, and each clip was announced in credits before being launched.
Kling 3.0's 4K costs 30 credits compared to 8.75 in 1080 p, about 3.4 times more for the same scene. The file is good 3840×2160, with a higher rate (34 Mbit/s versus 24). We didn't compare the sharp image by image: compare this clip to that of the neon alley above, and check the resolution before launching, as the price differential is the largest of all the settings we tested.
The draft mode Seedance 2.5. produces an overview in 480p for 15 credits, which can be finalized within seven days. But the estimate displayed to finalize this draft in 1080p is 80 credits, exactly the price of a 1080p clip of 5 seconds launched directly (80 credits). We have not finalized: these 80 credits are an estimate, not an expense. So the draft saves credits only if you throw several before finalizing the one you like.
From an image costs the same price as the text alone: 0.25 credit for the starting photo, then 8.75 for animating in 1080p. Of the five images we extracted, the light and frame move a little, but the bottle remains almost still and we do not see the required drop of condensation. The prompt is followed only in part: watch the clip before paying for a product plan.
The limits of this test
Let us be precise about what comparison Don't prove it. First, one generation per model : The same quick restart gives another clip, and a model can have a bad draw. Then, one scene wine glass tests liquid and transparency, not faces, hands, text or long shots. Third, we looked at five images per clip and read the movement from there, not image by image on the 120 images of each clip. Finally, the differences in duration, format and sound reported above make the price comparison approximate.
Another limit, comfort side: the publisher's web application is heavy in Chrome. The prompt entry has frozen the page several times for about 30 seconds, even if the text was well taken into account. And the switch « Unlimited mode » opens a paid offer (from 35 to 158 euros for one to seven days), which we did not buy.
Do the test at home without being trapped
- Read the price on the button « Generate » before each launch. In our test, the flow has always been equal to the price displayed.
- Check Kling 3.0 resolution. It opens in 4K: 30 credits per 5 seconds, against 7.5 in 720p and 8.75 in 1080p.
- Cut the automatic improvement of the prompt if you want to compare models: if not,tool Rewrite your text.
- Keep the same duration and format on all models that allow it, and note those that do not allow it (Veo offers 4, 6 or 8 seconds).
- Raise your balance before and after Each clip: this is the easiest way to spot an expensive setting.
- Do not click on the offers « Unlimited » until you calculate your actual use.
To write faster than ours, our guide Prompt AI video The structure that works and 30 examples breaks down the elements of a good plan (subject, action, camera, light, atmosphere). Official pages of Kling and Wan indicate current versions and access, which are changing rapidly.
FAQ
What's the best AI video generator 2026?
There is not one, and this test does not purport to designate one. On our stage (a glass of wine rocking), Seedance 2.5 and Veo 3.1 were the ones who respected the prompt with the most strength, Wan 3.0 gave a credible result for a very low price, Kling 3.0 remains the cheapest of the five. The right model depends on the plan, the duration and the budget in appropriations.
How much does a 5-second clip on Higgsfield cost?
In our essays of 27 October 2026, from 7.5 credits (Kling 3.0 in 720p) to 35 credits (Seedance 2.5 in 720p). Veo 3.1 cost 40 credits for 4 seconds. Prices change with promotions: always read the button before launching.
Why only one draw per model?
To keep a controlled budget and a legible protocol: 113.75 credits for the five clips. The reverse is that a bad print can penalize a model. A serious test on several prints and scenes would be more solid.
Are these videos retouched?
No. These are the files generated by Higgsfield, simply recompressed for the web. The only piece we care about is the five clip grid.
Is Veo 3.1 always the most expensive?
On this test, yes per second: 10 credits, compared to 7 for Seedance 2.5. The Veo 3.1 Fast variant is much cheaper: 16 credits for 4 seconds in 720p in our vertical test.
Can we use these clips commercially?
This depends on the conditions of tool and your package, and the law applicable to content generated by AI evolve. Read the conditions of the service before any commercial use and keep track of your prompts.
How to choose between Kling and Seedance ?
Kling to iterate fast and cheap, Seedance when the plan is precise and you agree to pay about five times more for the same duration. In both cases, watch the moving clip before deciding.
