ANALYSIS · VALUE
Price vs quality: which models earn their rate
| Model | $/s | Quality tier | Value verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seedance 2.0 | $0.065–0.14 | High (top-5 benchmarks) | Over-delivers — best ratio in the market |
| Kling 3.0 (sub) | ~$0.04 eff. | High + unique consistency | Over-delivers for narrative work |
| Sora 2 | $0.10 | Premium-adjacent | Fair — audio + physics justify the rate |
| Veo 3.1 Fast | $0.15 | High, with audio | Fair — the audio mid-tier |
| Gen-4.5 | $0.25 | Top (benchmark #1) | Fair — you pay for control, not just pixels |
| Veo 3.1 Standard | $0.40 | Top for dialogue | Fair for talking humans, poor for everything silent |
| Sora 2 Pro (1024p) | $0.50 | Top for physics | Specialist rate — worth it per hero shot only |
| Vidu / Wan 2.6 | $0.04–0.05 | Entry | Fair — you get what iteration needs |
Rates shown at each model's base tier, verified July 2026 from official vendor pricing pages and documentation. Vendors change prices without notice — see methodology.
The pattern in the data
Price tracks quality loosely — the market's inefficiencies are where your budget wins. The two standing arbitrages in mid-2026: Seedance, whose benchmark scores belong a tier above its price, and Kling's subscription, which sells mid-tier output at entry-tier rates for anyone who does the credit math. The premium tiers aren't scams — their edges (lip-sync, physics, control) are real — but they're specialist edges, worth paying for per shot, not per project.
One caveat keeps this honest: quality per dollar assumes comparable retake ratios, and they aren't comparable. A model that nails your specific style in fewer attempts beats its row in this table. Measure yours before standardizing.
Run your own numbers. The cost calculator applies your clip length, resolution and a realistic retake buffer across every model at once.