On the same prompts, Seedance 2.0 Fast outscored Veo 3.1 Fast on 3 of 3 scored briefs: faces, the UGC creator ad and the product ad, at $0.47 a clip. Veo costs $0.90 and earns it when the ad needs dialogue generated in the clip.
3-0briefs won, Seedance 2.0 Fast vs Veo 3.1 Fast
Seedance 2.0 Fastoverall winner
$0.47Seedance 2.0 Fast per clip
$0.90Veo 3.1 Fast per clip
Which to use, by ad
Face close-ups and talent shots
Seedance 2.0 Fast. Seedance was the most photographic: real window light, freckles, no plastic skin.
UGC creator ads
Seedance 2.0 Fast. Seedance kept the product readable in frame; in Veo it ended up small.
Product and e-commerce ads
Seedance 2.0 Fast. Neither is shippable from text alone: Seedance dissolved the label, Veo changed the bottle. Use a start frame.
Talking-head ads with dialogue
Veo 3.1 Fast. Veo 3.1 generates native dialogue in one shot.
Logo intros and motion graphics
Neither. Neither. Seedance misspelled the wordmark; Veo's line-art fell apart. Write it in code.
Same prompt, side by side
Every brief both models ran, with the identical prompt. Scores are out of 10 for the brief.
Motion design
Brand intro · kinetic type · UI motionPromptPremium motion design brand intro. On a deep navy background, bold white geometric shapes slide, snap and morph, assembling into the wordmark 'SPRITES'. Flat 2D vector, electric orange and lilac accents, smooth easing.
Seedance 2.0 Fast2.5/10
6th of 6
Misspelled 'SPRITS'. Automatic DQ for brand work.
Veo 3.1 Fast4.0/10
4th of 6
Thin line-art that falls apart mid-transition. Not UI-safe.
No video model wins this brief: Claude Opus 5.5 writing the motion in code beat all of them.
Face realism
Close-up portrait · micro-expressionPromptExtreme close-up portrait of a woman in her early 30s with freckles and natural skin, soft window light. She looks down, lifts her eyes to camera and breaks into a shy smile; subtle eye movement and a blink. 85mm, photorealistic.
Wins
Seedance 2.0 Fast9.0/10
1st of 6
Most photographic: real window light, freckles, a smile that reads genuine, no plastic skin.
Veo 3.1 Fast8.5/10
2nd of 6
Cinematic softness, natural blink-to-smile; a touch less skin detail.
E-com product ad
Hero packshot · liquid splashPromptLuxury product ad: amber perfume bottle, gold cap, label 'NOIR', on a wet black stone plinth. Water splash erupts in slow motion, warm rim light, camera orbits 90°. High-end commercial.
Wins
Seedance 2.0 Fast7.0/10
5th of 6
Best splash physics of all, but the label text dissolved.
Veo 3.1 Fast6.5/10
6th of 6
Gorgeous, but swapped in a spray-pump bottle and pouring liquid: off-brief.
UGC creator ad
Phone selfie · product in handPromptVertical smartphone selfie, UGC style. A friendly woman in her 20s in a bright bathroom holds a white serum bottle to camera, tilts it to show the label, taps it and smiles while talking. Handheld, natural daylight, not cinematic.
Wins
Seedance 2.0 Fast8.7/10
1st of 6
Natural creator delivery; product stays readable in frame. Winner of this brief.
Veo 3.1 Fast8.5/10
2nd of 6
Natural creator energy and native audio; product ends up small.
On faces and UGC, yes: Seedance 2.0 Fast scored higher than Veo 3.1 Fast on the same prompts, at about half the price per clip. Veo is the better pick when the ad needs spoken dialogue generated in the clip.
Seedance 2.0 or Veo 3.1 for talking-head ads?
Veo 3.1 when the dialogue has to come out of the model in one shot. Seedance 2.0 when the voiceover is added in the edit or driven by an audio reference, where its faces read more real.
Which is cheaper, Seedance or Veo?
Seedance 2.0 Fast, at $0.47 a clip against $0.90 for Veo 3.1 Fast.
Want finished ads, not model bakeoffs?
Director by Sprites: every monday you get finished, on-brand video ads, reviewed by a human. You never write a prompt. You pick the winners. Sprites ships the campaigns.