Seedance 2.0 vs Seedance 2.0 Mini
Same generation, same 15-second ceiling, same score on the blind index, and Mini costs half. It gives up exactly one capability for that: it cannot start from a written prompt, so it needs an image to work from.
Both engines run in the WowMade video studio, so every number below comes from the same production queue rather than from either vendor. Blind quality index v0.1, run 2026-09-02; speed and completion measured over a rolling 60-day window.
The numbers
| Measure | Seedance 2.0 | Seedance 2.0 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Blind quality index (0–100) | 79 | 79 |
| Median time, submit to finished clip | 260 s | 254 s |
| p90 time | 481 s | 497 s |
| Completion rate | 96% | 94% |
| Credits, 5 s at 720p | 20 | 10 |
| ≈ USD at the best credit rate | $3.80 | $1.90 |
| Longest single clip | 15 s | 15 s |
| Native audio | Yes | Yes |
| Starts from text alone | Yes | No — image required |
| Production renders behind these numbers | 800 | 266 |
USD is derived at the Premium credit rate of $0.19 per credit and is shown for comparison only. Full prices and the rate every figure derives from are on pricing details.
The same numbers, seen
Five views of the table above: how long the wait actually feels, how wide the slow tail runs, where these two sit among every engine we measure, how much blind score each credit buys, and what a job of your size costs on each.
A finished clip is the flag. Median means half of all runs land faster than this, half slower.
Engines without a blind score yet are not plotted. Hover a grey dot for its name.
Higher is more blind-index score per credit spent. Built from a v0.1 index, so it inherits that index’s uncertainty — bars within a few percent of each other are not ranked, and an engine with no score is absent rather than last.
At 9 runs, Seedance 2.0 Mini costs $17.10 less than Seedance 2.0. A Start plan at $25 carries 75 credits, Go $60 carries 250, Premium $95 carries 500. Plans renew monthly until cancelled and can be cancelled online at any time.
The same prompt, on both
A blind score is a number, not a picture, and at this end of the index the numbers sit close enough that the picture is the more useful of the two. Here is one brief run on each engine, at its own settings.
AI generated with Seedance 2.0
AI generated with Seedance 2.0 Mini
Both were run from the one prompt every engine on the site is given, each at its own settings — the same sample each shows on its own model page. Nothing is retouched and nothing is cherry-picked. Paste it into the studio and you can run it yourself:
A colossal whale carved from liquid mercury breaches through a sea of floating obsidian shards, molten gold light pouring from the seams in its hide, slow orbital camera, volumetric god rays, drifting embers, hyper-detailed, cinematic, no people
Both files are AI-generated and carry a signed C2PA content credential saying so. Anyone can check either one on verify.
What each one is
Seedance 2.0
Seedance 2.0 at full quality. Native audio, four resolutions up to 4K.
ByteDance · 800 production renders measured · scored over 2 judged prompts
Seedance 2.0 Mini
Most affordable Seedance tier. Native audio, last-frame control, output up to 4K.
ByteDance · 266 production renders measured · scored over 2 judged prompts
This is the cleanest trade in the video catalogue. Two engines from one generation, indistinguishable on the blind index, one costing half the other, and a single capability standing between them. There is no quality argument to have.
That makes the decision procedural rather than aesthetic: if you already have the opening frame, Mini is the obvious choice and the saving is real. If you are starting from a sentence, Mini cannot begin, and the full engine is not a preference but a requirement.
The two-step worth knowing is that an image is cheap to produce in the image studio. Generating a start frame there and animating it with Mini can come in under the cost of one text-to-video render on the full engine, and it gives you control over the first frame that a text prompt does not.
How to read the table
Median is the middle time across the window, so half of all runs land faster than the figure shown. p90 is the slow tail: nine runs in ten finish inside it. The gap between the two is the number to watch when you are planning a session — Seedance 2.0 spreads from 260 s to 481 s, Seedance 2.0 Mini from 254 s to 497 s. A wide spread means the queue, not the model, decides your afternoon.
Completion rate is the share of submitted runs that finished. It is not a quality measure — a run can complete and still be wrong for you — but a low rate means retries, and retries cost credits. Quality is a blind score out of 100 and is only comparable inside this index; it is not a vendor benchmark and it is not comparable to anyone else’s number.
What the numbers do not say
Because the scores are level, this page cannot tell you which produces the nicer clip — it can only tell you that nothing in the measurement separates them, and that the entry mode does.
Where each one wins
Choose Seedance 2.0 when
- You are starting from a written idea with no image in hand.
- You want one step rather than two, and the extra credits are worth the simpler path.
- You are prompting for something abstract that is easier to describe than to draw first.
Choose Seedance 2.0 Mini when
- You already have the opening frame — a photo, a product shot, or a still you generated.
- You are animating at volume and halving the per-clip cost changes what the batch costs.
- You want to control exactly what the first frame looks like rather than describing it.
What a real job costs
Six finished clips, allowing one reject in three — 9 runs:
- Seedance 2.0 — 180 credits, about $34.20, roughly 39 minutes of queue at the median.
- Seedance 2.0 Mini — 90 credits, about $17.10, roughly 38 minutes of queue at the median.
Credits come from a WowMade plan: Start at $25, Go at $60 or Premium at $95 per month. Plans renew monthly until cancelled and can be cancelled online at any time; new purchases are processed by Whop. The full price list is on pricing details.
How these numbers were produced
Quality is the WowMade Video Quality Index v0.1, run 2026-09-02: every engine runs the same prompts at matched settings and the results are scored blind. Speed and completion rate are production telemetry over a rolling 60-day window, not a lab test — they include queue time, because that is what you actually wait. Every engine we measure, including the ones not on this page, is published on the video model index.
Every clip generated here is AI-generated and carries a signed C2PA content credential saying so. Anyone can check a file on verify.
Questions
What is the difference between Seedance 2.0 and 2.0 Mini?
Entry mode and price. Mini costs half the credits per clip and cannot start from a written prompt; it needs a start image. Everything else, including the 15-second ceiling and the native audio track, matches.
Is Seedance 2.0 Mini lower quality?
Not by our measurement. The two sit at the same score on the blind index, so nothing in the published data separates the output. The difference the data does show is price.
Can Seedance 2.0 Mini do text to video?
No. It needs a start image to animate. Generate one in the image studio first, or use full Seedance 2.0, which accepts a prompt on its own.
Is it cheaper to generate an image and then animate it?
Often, yes. An image edit costs a small number of credits, so producing a start frame and animating it with Mini can total less than a single text-to-video render on the full engine.
Do both make sound?
Yes. Both engines in this pair output a native audio track alongside the clip, and both run in the same video studio on one credit balance.