Cost Optimization
Seedance 2.0 Pricing: API Cost, 480p vs 720p | EvoLink
EvoLink Team
Product Team
April 5, 2026
10 min read
Seedance 2.0 Pricing Explained: API Cost, 480p vs 720p, and Budgeting Examples
If you are searching for Seedance 2.0 pricing, the useful question is not just "what is the cheapest number?" The real question is: what does the current public EvoLink route page actually list today, and how should you budget around it?
As of April 5, 2026, the current public Seedance 2.0 route page on EvoLink lists two text-to-video routes: Standard at $0.071/s (480p) and $0.153/s (720p), and Fast at $0.057/s (480p) and $0.124/s (720p). The same public page states that audio generation is included at no extra charge and that pricing is shown per second of output video.
If you only want to start integrating, use the Seedance 2.0 model page. If you need to estimate production budgets, compare route shapes, or decide between Standard and Fast or between 480p and 720p, this article is the better starting point.
TL;DR
- The current public EvoLink Seedance 2.0 route page lists Standard text-to-video at $0.071/s (480p) and $0.153/s (720p).
- The Fast route lists at $0.057/s (480p) and $0.124/s (720p) — approximately 19% cheaper than Standard.
- The public route page supports 480p and 720p quality options.
- The public route page says pricing is shown per second of output video.
- The public route page also says audio generation is included at no extra charge.
- If you are quoting customer-facing budgets, verify the live Seedance 2.0 route page before publishing a rate card.
Current Seedance 2.0 Pricing on EvoLink
The current public EvoLink Seedance 2.0 route page exposes both Standard and Fast text-to-video routes at two quality tiers.
| Public route entry | Quality | Current public rate | Public billing note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seedance 2.0 Text to Video | 480p | $0.071/s | Price shown per second of output video |
| Seedance 2.0 Text to Video | 720p | $0.153/s | Price shown per second of output video |
| Seedance 2.0 Fast Text to Video | 480p | $0.057/s | Price shown per second of output video |
| Seedance 2.0 Fast Text to Video | 720p | $0.124/s | Price shown per second of output video |
| Web search | - | $0.0006/request | Charged only when enabled |
The Fast route is approximately 19% cheaper than the Standard route at the same quality tier, with faster inference but the same 480p/720p quality options.
These rates reflect the current public route page reviewed on April 5, 2026. They are useful for budgeting, but like all route pricing, they can change with future catalog updates.
Pricing Scope and Methodology
This article is about current public EvoLink route pricing, not an unlabeled global ByteDance rate card.
That distinction matters because "Seedance 2.0 pricing" can refer to different things:
- official vendor pricing
- a specific partner route
- a preview or region-specific route
- a text-to-video price table that may not fully describe every other mode
For this article, the scope is narrow:
- platform: EvoLink
- date checked: April 5, 2026
- quality options discussed here: 480p and 720p
- billing unit: per second
- main public pricing source: the current Seedance 2.0 route page on EvoLink
If your internal team needs a quote for procurement, customer resale, or margin planning, confirm the live pricing tab on the route page before treating any snapshot as contractual.
How Seedance 2.0 Cost Is Calculated
The simplest pricing formula looks like this:
price per second x billed seconds = total costFor the current public text-to-video pricing table, the page says pricing is shown per second of output video.
Current public budgeting formula
price per second x output duration = total generation costExamples:
5 seconds x $0.071/s = $0.35510 seconds x $0.153/s = $1.53
The public route page also says audio generation is included, so enabling audio does not add a separate listed charge on that page.
Real Budgeting Examples
These examples use the current public text-to-video rates above and are intended as planning examples, not permanent quotes.
| Workflow | Example setup | Budget logic | Estimated total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard draft clip | Standard 480p, 5s output | 5 x $0.071 | $0.355 |
| Standard higher-quality | Standard 720p, 10s output | 10 x $0.153 | $1.53 |
| Fast draft clip | Fast 480p, 5s output | 5 x $0.057 | $0.285 |
| Fast higher-quality | Fast 720p, 10s output | 10 x $0.124 | $1.24 |
| Longer 480p clip | Standard 480p, 15s output | 15 x $0.071 | $1.065 |
| Batch production (Fast) | 50 clips, Fast 480p, 5s each | 50 x $0.285 | $14.25 per batch |
These numbers are intentionally simple. Real budgets should also account for retries, failed generations, and internal testing volume.
480p vs 720p: Which Should You Choose?
The real decision is not "which one is better?" It is which one fits the job stage and budget tolerance.
Choose 480p if...
- you are validating prompts or motion concepts
- you are producing high-volume short-form drafts
- your team is testing multiple creative directions before committing to final output
- your workflow cares more about iteration speed than polished detail
Choose 720p if...
- you are creating customer-facing product demos
- your output needs sharper edges, cleaner movement, or stronger presentation quality
- your team wants fewer compromises before post-production
- you are producing branded content where low-resolution softness creates obvious quality loss
In practice, many teams should draft in 480p and promote only the winners to 720p. That is usually the cleanest budget control pattern for Seedance 2.0.
What the Public Pricing Page Does and Does Not Tell You
The current public pricing page is useful because it tells you:
- the public text-to-video rate at 480p
- the public text-to-video rate at 720p
- that audio is included
- that pricing is shown per second of output video
But it does not fully answer every budgeting question for every possible workflow. For example:
- whether every other Seedance 2.0 mode uses the exact same public pricing shape
- what your retry rate looks like in practice
- how much internal prompt iteration will add to monthly spend
That is why the safest customer-facing language is: quote what the public route page explicitly shows, and treat anything beyond that as a workflow estimate rather than a promised rate card.
Common Budgeting Mistakes
1. Quoting a non-public internal number instead of the live route price
If your live route page says
$0.071/s and $0.153/s, do not publish an older or internal snapshot that uses a different floor.2. Running all drafts at 720p
Teams often waste budget by validating prompts at final quality. For most pipelines, 480p is the better testing tier.
3. Ignoring retry and testing volume
Production cost is never just the final clips you keep. Budget for internal QA and discarded runs too.
4. Treating every Seedance 2.0 use case as one flat workflow
Seedance 2.0 is a family of route shapes, not one universal clip price.
How to Compare Seedance 2.0 Pricing With Other Video APIs
If you are comparing Seedance 2.0 with Kling, Sora 2, or Veo 3.1, do not force everything into one fake apples-to-apples table.
What matters most is:
- whether the route bills per second or per generated clip
- whether the route changes price by quality tier
- whether the route bills on output only or bundles pricing differently
- whether your workflow is prompt-first, image-guided, or oriented toward more complex editing flows
That means the right comparison question is usually not:
- "which one has the lowest sticker price?"
It is:
- "which route gives my workflow the best cost structure?"
For example:
- prompt-first short clips may favor simpler per-second budgeting
- higher-quality routes should be checked for whether the extra cost actually reduces retries
- premium routes can still be worth the price if they reduce retries or improve final-output hit rate
When Seedance 2.0 Is Worth the Price
Seedance 2.0 is usually worth the price when:
- your team needs structured video workflows rather than one-shot experimentation
- you want a single route family covering text-to-video, image-to-video, and reference-driven generation
- you care about controlling creative direction without jumping straight to the highest-cost video route
It is less attractive when:
- your use case is mostly low-value testing and could stay on a cheaper video path
- your team defaults to long, HD generations before it has a stable creative process
- you do not benefit from the modes that make Seedance 2.0 operationally distinctive
FAQ
How much does Seedance 2.0 cost on EvoLink right now?
As of April 5, 2026, the current public Seedance 2.0 route page on EvoLink lists Standard text-to-video at $0.071/s (480p) and $0.153/s (720p), and Fast at $0.057/s (480p) and $0.124/s (720p).
What is the difference between Standard and Fast?
The Fast route is approximately 19% cheaper with faster inference. Both routes support the same 480p/720p quality options and include audio at no extra charge.
Is Seedance 2.0 billed per second?
Yes. The current public EvoLink route uses per-second billing.
Is audio included in Seedance 2.0 pricing on EvoLink?
Yes. The current public route page says audio generation is included, no extra charge for both Standard and Fast routes.
Does 720p cost more than 480p?
Yes. On the current public route page, Standard 720p is listed at $0.153/s, above 480p at $0.071/s. Fast 720p is $0.124/s, above Fast 480p at $0.057/s.
Is Seedance 2.0 billed per second or per video?
The current public route page says pricing is shown per second of output video.
Where should I verify live Seedance 2.0 pricing before quoting customers?
Use the current Seedance 2.0 route page and check the pricing tab directly before publishing customer-facing rate cards.
Should I use 480p or 720p for production?
Use 480p for testing and draft-stage iteration. Use 720p when the clip is closer to a customer-facing or brand-facing final asset.
View Seedance 2.0 API on EvoLink
If your next question is access and onboarding, read Seedance 2.0 API Access: What International Developers Should Know (2026). If you want to compare quality and workflow fit, read the review and comparison pieces below.
