Mixer AI
Grok Imagine Video vs Seedance 2.0: model comparison
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.
Key differences
Specifications
| Spec | Grok Imagine Video | Seedance 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Model variants | Grok Imagine Video | Mini / Fast / Pro |
| Generation modes | from text / from first and last frames / from references | from text / from first and last frames / from references |
| First frame | Yes | Yes |
| Last frame | Yes | 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 | 1 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 | ≈ 6.38 coins | ≈ 65.8 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.
Sources
Prices, availability and specifications come from the Mixer AI catalog. This is not an independent test: try both models on the same task before choosing.
What we compare
FAQ
Which model followed the complex storyboard better?
Seedance 2.0 followed the requested scene sequence much more accurately in this direct test.
Which one preserved text in the reference better?
Grok preserved the lettering better in that specific A/B. It is one observed test, not a guarantee for every text-heavy scene.