The Chinese tech resource Leiphone conducted a comparative test of two leading Chinese artificial intelligence models for video creation—Seedance 2.5 from ByteDance and Kling VIDEO 3.0 from Kuaishou. The goal of the test was to determine how well each model could function as a director of short videos. According to Leiphone's report from September 30, the differences between the models are now less related to image quality and more to the workflow, as each model is better suited for performing different tasks.
Leiphone tasked both models with completing two 15-second assignments. The first assignment involved creating an educational explainer video where an anthropomorphic crab represented the OpenClaw 2.0 working agent interface. The scenario included a sequence of shots: introduction, revealing the workspace, command interaction, skills, permission and sandbox warnings, and a concluding phrase. The second assignment required each model to rewrite the tragic snowy ending of a popular Chinese historical drama into a happy one, using a reference frame.
Results of the explainer video tests
In the context of the explainer video, Leiphone noted that Seedance 2.5 created a more polished clip. It demonstrated a stable host character, a full studio set, and smooth camera movements resembling a product advertisement. However, the icons in the Seedance 2.5 interface were generic, which made it difficult for viewers to understand what OpenClaw 2.0 was changing, and the on-screen text remained unreliable. Kling VIDEO 3.0 followed the storyboard more accurately, displaying the product name on screen in the first second and executing every requested moment. Although the host in Kling looked more cartoonish, the word 'Skill' appeared with distorted characters, and the final shot seemed disjointed. Leiphone also reported that Seedance had a shorter waiting time in this round.
Comparison when working with dramatic content
The drama test revealed the most obvious differences. On the Jimeng AI platform developed by ByteDance, Seedance 2.5 rejected the reference image, assuming it might resemble a public figure. Even after Leiphone removed the image and left only the text, the system continued to stop, indicating the presence of copyrighted elements. Kling VIDEO 3.0, conversely, generated a complete clip that retained the snow, costumes, and character relationships, transitioning from rescue to recovery and ending with a sunset all within 15 seconds. Leiphone emphasized that the more accurately a model reproduces the source material, the more users should pre-approve the rights.
Strategic positioning of products
The resource linked the results to the design of each product. ByteDance positions Seedance 2.5 for longer production editing, allowing generation of up to 30 seconds at once, using up to 30 reference images, 10 video clips, and 10 audio clips, while also providing timeline-level editing. In turn, Kuaishou's Kling VIDEO 3.0 is oriented towards clips lasting from 3 to 15 seconds, supports native sound, multi-frame generation, and dialogues involving multiple characters.
Leiphone's final verdict was that Kling VIDEO 3.0 is suitable for quick drafts of technical explanations, whereas Seedance 2.5 is better suited for polished brand films and offers safer restrictions for content related to real people or film material. Furthermore, at the end of September, Kling AI announced a preview of its next-generation model—Kling 4.0.