Seedance 2.5 vs Llama 4 Maverick: which should you choose in 2026?
Seedance 2.5 (by ByteDance) and Llama 4 Maverick (by Meta) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Choose Seedance 2.5 if…
- • you need video generation
Choose Llama 4 Maverick if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Seedance 2.5 | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | 21.0% SWE-bench |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
Comprehensive comparison of AI models across intelligence, price, speed, and latency Intelligence Index | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Seedance 2.5 | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | ByteDance | Meta |
| API provider | ByteDance | Meta |
| Input context | — | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Maximum output | — | 16,384 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Aug 7, 2026 | Apr 5, 2025 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 2024-08-31 |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, Video, Audio | Text, Image |
| Outputs | Video | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | Yes | No |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 7, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Seedance 2.5 from ByteDance with Llama 4 Maverick from Meta? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Seedance 2.5 | Llama 4 Maverick | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Seedance 2.5 vs Llama 4 Maverick FAQ
Which is better, Seedance 2.5 or Llama 4 Maverick?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
A comparable blended token price is not available for both models. Check the API pricing rows for the values that are currently published.
Which model supports more context?
Comparable context-window data is not available for both models.
Can I switch between Seedance 2.5 and Llama 4 Maverick?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Seedance 2.5 comparisons
H3
MiniMax
MiniMax H3 is a lightweight, open-weights video generation model from MiniMax.
Avatar IV
Heygen
HeyGen: Avatar IV is an image-to-video model that animates a single photo into an expressive, lip-synced talking-head video.
FLUX.3 Video
Black Forest Labs
FLUX.3 Video is a video generation model from Black Forest Labs.
Aleph 2.0
Runway
Runway Aleph 2.0 is an in-context video editing model from Runway.
Wan 3.0
Alibaba
Wan 3.0 is a video generation model from Alibaba for text-to-video, image-to-video, and reference-guided video generation.
FLUX Video Upscale
Black Forest Labs
FLUX Video Upscale is a video upscaling model from Black Forest Labs.
More Llama 4 Maverick comparisons
GPT-5
OpenAI
GPT-5 is OpenAI’s most advanced model, offering major improvements in reasoning, code quality, and user experience.
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp is a model by DeepSeek.
Ox Alpha
Stealth
Ox Alpha is a reasoning model designed for coding, sustained agentic work, and production workloads.
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen
Qwen3.8 27B is an open-weight dense vision-language model from Qwen.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.