2026-10-26 · VideoFreeTier

Seedance 2.5 Credits to Dollars: What a Five-Second Clip Costs

A five-second Seedance 2.5 clip at 720p costs about 56 credits on Invideo, the one channel found here that publishes a per-model credit cost. At the rate Invideo sells credits on its annual billing, that is roughly $0.84 a clip; on monthly billing, about $1.68. Those two numbers are Invideo's own figures multiplied together, not a measured deduction. The same clip at 1080p is about 96 credits, or $1.44 to $2.88. A second channel now answers the same question without credits at all: CapCut's pricing page, read on 2 November 2026, prints $0.12/sec on Pro and $0.18/sec on Ultra, which puts a five-second clip at $0.60 and $0.90 if that rate is per second of finished video — and makes the dearer plan the more expensive one per second.

Credits are the unit most channels quote and none of them defines in dollars, which is why the question "what does a clip cost" has no answer until you find a page that publishes both a per-model credit cost and a price for credits. This page found one, and then a second channel that skips the conversion altogether by quoting dollars per second. Below is what each says, the conversion the first one allows, and the part neither settles.

The two published figures

Invideo's pricing page, read on 26 October 2026, lists a per-model cost column and a plan column. The plan column is where dollars live.

The model column prices the same model three ways:

The tilde is the page's own, and it matters. These are stated approximations, not measured deductions, and the site that publishes them does not say what the approximation is approximating.

The conversion, with the assumption named

Multiply one table by the other and a clip gets a dollar figure. The assumption is that a credit costs the same whatever it is spent on, which is the only reading the two columns support.

The 30-second rows are six five-second clips, because the published unit is five seconds and the page does not state a discount for longer runs. If one exists, those rows are too high.

Note which rate is used. The $0.015 figure belongs to Plus and Max on annual billing, and those are the only two plans where Seedance 2.5 appears at all. Starter's cheaper-looking credits cannot be used to buy this model, so its $0.025 rate is not a price for anything on this page.

The page checks itself, which is unusual

The same table states how many videos each plan buys, and those counts corroborate the per-clip cost. On Plus, 2,000 credits are quoted as 35 clips at 720p; 35 times 56 is 1,960, which fits inside 2,000 with 40 left over. The 1080p row gives 20 clips, and 20 times 96 is 1,920. Draft gives 81, and 81 times 24.5 is 1,984. Max repeats the pattern at 5,000 credits: 89, 52 and 204 clips against the same three unit costs.

Two independent columns agreeing to within a few credits is the closest thing to a receipt this kind of page offers. It does not prove a run deducts 56 credits. It does show that the channel's own arithmetic is consistent with the number it prints, which is more than most pricing pages manage.

The other channels do not publish a credit cost

Two other channels that carry Seedance 2.5 were read on 26 October 2026, and neither prints a per-model credit cost for it.

Runway's pricing page lists per-model costs, but for Gen-4.5, Aleph 2.0 and Seedance 2.0 Fast — not 2.5. Higgsfield's page names Seedance 2.5 in its plan comparison table and never states what one generation deducts.

So the credit figures above are one channel's, and the honest framing is that Invideo is the only channel found that publishes a per-model credit cost. That is a narrower claim than "the only channel that can answer the dollar question", and the CapCut page below is why: it never mentions credits for this model and still prints a price in dollars.

CapCut quotes dollars per second, and the dearer plan costs more

CapCut's pricing page does not publish a credit cost for Seedance 2.5. It publishes a per-second dollar figure, in the benefits list of each plan card, qualified by the word "from". Read on 2 November 2026 from a session the page geolocates to Singapore, the three paid cards print this:

The Monthly tab is the one the page opens on, and both tabs carry the same per-second line, unchanged. That matters, because the two tabs do not carry the same monthly price: Pro at SGD 214.98 a year works out to SGD 17.92 a month, about 24% below the SGD 23.48 the Monthly tab shows. Whatever the per-second figure is, it is not the plan fee divided by anything, because it does not move when the plan fee does.

Here is the part no CapCut tutorial page states. Ultra's monthly price is 4.3 times Pro's, and its per-second price is 1.5 times Pro's. On CapCut's own numbers, the plan that costs four times as much is the one that charges half again as much for every second of Seedance 2.5.

The two columns do not agree with each other either. Pro's 850 credits at SGD 23.48 come to about SGD 0.028 a credit; Ultra's 11,112 credits at SGD 100.98 come to about SGD 0.009 a credit, roughly three times cheaper per credit. If the per-second figure were the credit rate applied to a fixed credit cost per second, Ultra should come out about three times cheaper per second, not 50% dearer. It does not, so at least one of the two columns is not a conversion of the other. The page does not say which, and the "(first month)" tag on both single-seat per-second lines is a plausible reason they diverge: a first-month rate need not follow the credit maths at all.

For scale, if the per-second figure is per second of finished video, five seconds is $0.60 on Pro and $0.90 on Ultra, and thirty seconds is $3.60 and $5.40. Those are this site's multiplication of the printed rate, not a bill anyone received.

What the CapCut page does not settle

Three things are missing from that page, and each one blocks a conclusion someone will want to draw from it.

The currency of the per-second figure is unstated. Every plan price on the page carries an explicit SGD token, four of them in the rendered text, while the per-second lines use a bare $ and no currency code appears anywhere near them. The plan prices are also geolocated: the same page served to another country shows another currency, so the SGD figures above belong to one session in Singapore rather than to the site as a whole. Whether $0.12/sec is SGD or USD is not answered on the page, and until it is, that figure cannot be added to or subtracted from any dollar amount quoted in another currency.

Both per-second lines that belong to a single seat are tagged "(first month)". CapCut does not publish what the rate becomes after the first month, so $0.12/sec and $0.18/sec are introductory figures and there is no long-term per-second price on the page to compare them against. The Teams line is tagged differently, "per seat" instead of "(first month)", and carries no first-month qualifier at all, so it is not established whether the same expiry applies to it.

The page also disclaims its own numbers. Above the cards it prints: "Displayed pricing is for reference only. Sign in to see final pricing, taxes, and any applicable offers for your account." A channel that says its displayed price is for reference only has told you the figure is not the price you will be charged, which is a weaker claim than any number above it.

Seedance 2.5 sits above the cheapest plan on every channel

One pattern survived across every channel here that publishes a plan table, and it is worth stating plainly because it changes what a "cheap" plan buys.

On Invideo, Seedance 2.5 carries an explicit exclusion mark on Starter and appears on Plus and Max. On Higgsfield, the Seedance 2.5 row carries a dash on the $19 plan and a mark on the $59 plan. On both, the model is a step above the entry tier.

CapCut fits the same shape. Its Free card lists two benefits, free templates and basic editing tools, and names no model at all; Seedance 2.5 appears only on Pro, Ultra and Teams. Three channels, three plan tables, one pattern: the model is never on the free or entry tier.

That is a different kind of cost from the credit price. Someone comparing entry plans on headline price alone will find, after paying, that the model they came for is on the next tier up — and on Invideo the per-credit rate does not improve between Plus and Max, so the extra money buys volume, not a better rate.

What this does not establish

No generation was run for this page, so nothing here is a measured deduction. The per-clip costs are the channel's stated approximations multiplied by the channel's own price per credit; if a run deducts more or less than 56 credits at 720p, every dollar figure above moves with it.

It also does not establish a cross-channel comparison. Two channels now publish a dollar figure for this model, but not the same kind of figure — Invideo's is a credit cost multiplied by a credit price, CapCut's is a bare per-second rate in an unstated currency — so the two cannot be lined up without inventing an exchange rate.

Finally, the "~" is unresolved. The channel does not say whether 56 is rounded up, rounded down, or an average across prompts. The self-consistency check above narrows the range but cannot remove the tilde.

Nothing above is a CapCut measurement either. No generation was run on CapCut, the per-second figures are read off a benefits list that says "from", and no receipt was produced. What the page supports is the inversion and the arithmetic, not a bill.

Source and limits

The first two tables reproduce Invideo's pricing page as rendered on 26 October 2026, including its own column headings and its own approximation marks. The CapCut table was read on 2 November 2026 from the page's static HTML and from a rendered session, and the two agreed line for line; the per-second lines, the plan prices and the billing-cycle tabs are quoted as rendered, and the currency tokens were counted on the same page. Nothing on the CapCut page sat behind a login and no account was used.

The wider dataset — free-tier allowances across channels, each with the date it was observed and the kind of source it came from — is published as CSV, JSON and Markdown at the data page.