How to compare AI video models fairly (and what a test costs)

How to compare AI video models: the short answer

To compare AI video models fairly, give every model the exact same prompt, length, aspect ratio, resolution and audio setting, run each one at least three times, and score the clips without knowing which model made which.

Sounds obvious. Almost nobody does it. The usual test is one prompt on two tools, keep the best clip from each, call a winner. One render proves very little, though, and two models set up differently aren't playing the same game.

Below is the full method, the traps you only spot once you read the spec sheets closely (lengths that don't line up, audio that moves both the price and the ranking, no seed), and what a clean test costs. Numbers come from Imaginode's catalog as of October 19, 2026. Disclosure: Imaginode, the site you're reading, is Frank Houbre's tool. We use it as the test bench here because its 26 video models share one credit scale, and further down we say what it can't do.

Why public leaderboards aren't enough

The two big video leaderboards, Artificial Analysis and Arena, don't agree on who's on top, and neither one was run on your prompt.

Both work the same way: voters watch two videos made from the same text, without knowing which model made which, and pick one. The votes become an Elo score. It's a good method and the best place to build a shortlist.

Now look at the top of each table on October 19, 2026. On Artificial Analysis, Wan 3.0 leads with 1,174, Seedance 2.5 is third, MiniMax H3 fourth, and Grok Imagine Video 1.5 only tenth. On Arena, last updated September 21 with 718,577 votes, the top two spots go to Gemini Omni Flash, Grok Imagine Video 1.5 climbs to fourth, and Wan 3.0 drops to sixth.

The reasons are mundane. Different prompts, different voters, and each scale has its own zero point: Artificial Analysis pins Kling 3.0 at 1080p to 1,000, so its numbers can't be read against Arena's. More useful are the columns people skip. Wan 3.0 sits sixth on Arena, but its rank spread runs from 3 to 9, so within the margin of error it could be third. Grok Imagine Video 1.5 carries a Preliminary tag there, with 1,218 votes against 56,318 for Seedance 2.0.

So use the leaderboards to pick three or four candidates, then settle it on your own shot.

Audio changes the ranking, and the price

Turning generated audio on or off moves models up and down the leaderboards and changes the bill, so it's the first setting to lock.

Artificial Analysis runs two boards, one for video with audio and one for silent video. Switch between them and the order shifts: Seedance 2.5 is third with audio, fourth without; MiniMax H3 goes from fourth to second. A model can win your test purely because people liked its soundtrack.

The price gap is just as clear. On Imaginode, a 5-second 720p clip from Kling V3 costs 101 credits silent and 152 with audio. Veo 3.1 Lite goes from 15 to 24 credits for 4 seconds. A silent model and a talking one can't be compared on quality or on cost.

Decide whether your shot needs generated audio, then keep that setting for every model. If music and voice get added in the edit anyway, test everything silent: it's cheaper and fairer.

Enlarge the screenshot

One prompt, word for word

The text has to be identical for every model: write it once and wire it everywhere.

Any change in wording skews the test. Write a complete video prompt (subject, action, camera, light, mood) and then leave it alone. If a model misreads it, write that down in your scoring sheet and keep the text as it is.

On Imaginode's canvas, the simple setup is one Text node wired into several Video nodes, one per model. The same text goes into each. Add a Camera node if every model should get the same move, and a Reference node if the character has to stay the same across models. For the prompt itself, our guide to writing a prompt that works gives the structure, and directing the camera covers the vocabulary of moves.

Pick the right kind of shot, too. A calm shot of a mountain lake tells you nothing about how a model handles a crowd or a dialogue scene. If your project mixes shot types, plan two or three test prompts and run each one on every model.

Same length, ratio and resolution: where it gets awkward

Models don't all accept the same lengths: Veo 3.1 only does 4, 6 or 8 seconds, Kling 2.5 Turbo only 5 or 10, and there is no length the two share.

This is the trap you find by opening the spec sheets. Most models in the catalog take a continuous range (Seedance 2.5 from 4 to 30 seconds, Wan 3.0 from 2 to 30, Grok Imagine Video 1.5 from 1 to 15). A few only offer fixed steps, which makes a same-length match between Veo 3.1 Lite and Kling 2.5 Turbo impossible.

Two ways around it. Run every continuous-range model at 5 seconds and Veo at 4 or 6, and note it in the sheet. Or bring everything back to price per second, which is what Imaginode's model pages do, showing a per-5-second rate even for Veo: 30 credits per 5 seconds at 720p, so 6 credits a second.

For aspect ratio, 16:9 and 9:16 work on every generation model in the catalog; 1:1 doesn't (Veo 3.1 doesn't offer it). For resolution, check the price before dropping to 720p out of habit. Kling 2.5 Turbo costs 26 credits per 5 seconds at 720p and at 1080p, Kling V3 costs 152 at 720p, 1080p or 2160p, Veo 3.1 Fast costs 90 at 720p and at 1080p. On those, test straight at the resolution you'll deliver. Seedance 2.5 tops out at 720p on Imaginode.

No seed: three runs per model

Imaginode's Video node doesn't pass a seed to the model, so every run rolls its own dice and a single clip per model proves nothing.

With images, a seed often lets you reproduce a render (we cover that in how to recreate the same AI image). With video on Imaginode, you can't set one: we checked the code, and the request goes out without a seed. And even on providers that accept a seed, it doesn't carry from one model to another. It replays one model; it can't referee between two.

The fix is plain statistics: three runs per model, minimum. Then score the median clip, the middle one. The best of three shows what the model can do on a good day, the worst shows its accidents, the median shows what you'll get most of the time. If two runs out of three break a hand or melt a face, that's no longer bad luck.

Score blind, with a fixed sheet

Rename the files before you watch them, then rate every clip on the same criteria, from 1 to 5.

That's how the arenas work, and it works at home too. Once you know a clip came from the model everyone's talking about, you watch it more kindly. Download the clips, give them neutral names (A1, A2, B1...), and keep the key in a separate file. Better still, have someone else score them.

The sheet we suggest has seven criteria: prompt adherence (everything you asked for is there), stability (faces, hands and objects that don't melt), motion (weight, speed, believable physics), camera (the move you asked for), audio (if you turned it on), cost in credits, and render time. Add one last yes or no: would I publish this shot as is?

That last column often decides things better than the averages. A model that scores 4 everywhere but never gets a yes loses to a patchier one that delivers two publishable shots out of three.

What a fair test costs

A clean test of four models, three runs each, at 5 seconds and 720p, costs about 500 credits on Imaginode, roughly $6 worth of credits.

The table below gives the price of one reference clip for twelve generation models in the catalog, with audio on (the default). A full example: Kling 2.5 Turbo, Seedance 2.0, Wan 3.0 and Veo 3.1 Lite (at 4 seconds), three runs each, comes to (26 + 60 + 60 + 24) × 3 = 510 credits. The Starter plan includes 900 a month for $17 before tax, and one credit is worth about $0.012. Exact prices are on the pricing page, and the calculator redoes the math for other combinations.

One budget tip: run a cheap first round, then a second round on the two finalists only. There's no point running Kling V3 three times at 152 credits if Kling 2.5 Turbo at 26 already nails your shot.

Enlarge the screenshot

Running the test in Imaginode, step by step

1. Drop a Text node and write your prompt. 2. Add one Video node per model you're comparing, and wire the same Text node into each. 3. In every node, set the same length (or the closest one), 16:9, the same resolution and the same audio choice. The credit cost shows before each generation. 4. Copy and paste the whole group, Text node included, twice to get three runs, select everything and click Generate selection. 5. Download the clips from My media, rename them, score them blind.

A generation that fails on the provider's side is refunded in credits automatically, so a model that crashes costs you nothing extra, but write it down in the sheet anyway: reliability is a real criterion. If you're new to video, your first AI video walks through the Video node.

What this method doesn't cover

It compares models on a text prompt. If your work starts from an image (image to video), rerun the test with the same starting image, because models react differently, and some, like Kling 2.5 Turbo, refuse an end frame. It also says nothing about the rest of a project: holding a character across twenty shots is a different test, covered in which AI model to choose.

It also ages fast. Models change every month, and so do prices. Keep your sheet and test prompts in a file: when a new model ships, you can put it through the same bench in ten minutes instead of starting over. For an overview of current models, our pick of the best AI video generators is the place to start.

On the Imaginode side, two limits to know: no seed for video, and some models are capped compared to their original release (Seedance 2.5 stops at 720p, while ByteDance advertises higher in its own apps, as detailed in where to use Seedance 2.5). If your test is about a model's maximum resolution, run it with the model's own maker.