Comment by coder543
3 hours ago
A year and a half behind Seedance 2.0? That is a bold claim that needs evidence.
According to one user preference leaderboard, MiniMax H3 is already ahead of Seedance 2.0 based on thousands of A/B votes: https://artificialanalysis.ai/video/leaderboard/text-to-vide...
I haven't seen any user preference comparisons between Seedance 2.5 and MiniMax H3. As an upper bound, H3 cannot be more than 6 months behind Seedance 2.5 since H3 is already ahead of where Seedance was 6 months ago.
> A year and a half behind Seedance 2.0? That is a bold claim that needs evidence.
SOTA a year ago was Kling 2.5, and H3 does not look or perform at that level.
The Artificial Analysis rankings are whack. They rank Omni first, which is incredulously wrong. Google's models broadly suck, and there they all are - right at the top.
Artificial Analysis has notoriously ranked models such as Grok Imagine highly and continues to rank Happy Horse as a good model despite the model being absolute garbage.
Could it be because they are subject to broad based statistical attacks? It's easy to encode information about the origin of media in either its metadata or output frames. Or maybe there's simply no overlap between creatives and people who click on ELO scores.
I've spent thousands upon thousands of dollars generating video. I will stand by the claim that nothing touches Seedance 2.0 / 2.5.
It's good that we're getting better open weights. It puts price pressure on the foundation model companies. But these open models are not a substitute for Kling or Seedance yet. Not even close.