Mixer AI › Knowledge Base › Comparison › Grok Imagine Video vs Seedance 2.0

Grok Imagine Video vs Seedance 2.0

Grok Imagine Video 1.5 and Seedance 2.0 were compared on matching tests: physics, text, fighting, dialogue and a complex storyboard. In Mixer AI, Grok reaches 30 seconds and accepts up to 7 images, while Seedance 2.0 reaches 15 seconds but additionally accepts video references.

Try it on Mixer AI

Key differences

Grok in Mixer AI: text/image-to-video, 6–30 seconds, up to 7 images; 1080p allows one image.

Seedance 2.0: text/image/video input, up to 15 seconds, up to 9 images and 3 video references.

In the A/B, Grok did well in specific physics and text checks, while Seedance was clearly stronger on multi-step action, lip sync and storyboard adherence.

Specifications

Spec	Grok Imagine Video	Seedance 2.0
Model variants	Grok Imagine Video	Mini / Fast / Pro
Generation modes	from text / from references	from text / from first and last frames / from references
First frame	No	Yes
Last frame	No	Yes
Input photos	up to 7	up to 9
Input videos	No	up to 3
Input audio files	No	up to 3
Input video length	No	2–15 s
Input audio length	No	2–15 s
Extra modes	normal / fun / spicy	No
Output audio	No	Can be enabled or disabled
Minimum duration	6 s	4 s
Maximum duration	30 s	15 s
Resolutions	480p / 720p / 1080p	480p / 720p / 1080p / 4K
Aspect ratios	9:16 / 16:9 / 1:1 / 2:3 / 3:2	9:16 / 16:9 / 1:1 / 21:9 / 4:3 / 3:4 / adaptive
Prompt limit	5,000 characters	20,000 characters
Price, 1 s · 1080p	≈ 5.12 coins	≈ 61.32 coins · Pro

Physics and in-frame text

In the soccer-ball test, the reviewer liked Grok's physics even though the ball design distorted; in the following domino test, Grok failed while Seedance performed much better.
When animating a reference with lettering, Grok recognized and retained the text well in close-up; Seedance struggled more with the text in this check.

Action, lip sync and multi-step structure

In the fight scene, Grok started convincingly but the motion broke down later; Seedance looked more realistic and added synchronized slow motion and sound.
In the lip-sync test, Grok added extra dialogue and mixed up speaker timing. Seedance tied speech, camera and emotion together more accurately, although text inside the scene remained a weakness.
On the complex storyboard, Grok failed to follow the requested sequence while Seedance preserved the structure much more consistently and added matching sound.

Neutral reading of the test

Grok's strong text result and one physics result did not repeat across every round. Seedance more often preserved long causal sequences inside the scene. Grok still has a concrete product-level distinction in Mixer AI: a 30-second maximum, versus 15 seconds for Seedance 2.0.

In-frame text: Grok led this particular test.
Complex storyboard and lip sync: Seedance led.
Maximum Mixer AI duration: 30 seconds for Grok, 15 seconds for Seedance 2.0.