ChatGPT
Perplexity
Claude
Gemini
TL;DR
Seedance 2.5 leads the OpenArt Arena Animation board at 1,077, ahead of Seedance 2.0 at 1,054 and Wan 3.0 at 1,039.
Arena publishes a 95 percent confidence interval with every score, and the intervals for the four animation criteria run roughly plus or minus 55 points. The top four models have overlapping confidence intervals on each criterion, but the extent of overlap varies. Seedance 2.0 has the highest reported Character consistency score at 1,063, but its interval of 1,005 to 1,119 overlaps Seedance 2.5's interval of 985 to 1,101. The published intervals therefore do not establish that Seedance 2.0 performs better on that criterion.
The criterion intervals distinguish some leading models from lower-scoring models more clearly. Seedance 2.0's Character consistency interval does not overlap Google Omni Flash, HappyHorse 1.1 or Flux 3 Video at all.
Use the composite to identify a shortlist, then inspect the relevant criterion scores and test the finalists with your own references and production prompts.
How the eleven models rank for animation
Arena weights the Animation composite with general capabilities at 30 percent, then Character consistency, Motion quality, Shot continuity and Style understanding at 17.5 percent each. The board reports roughly 5,250 to 5,320 votes for each model. Arena fixes MiniMax H3 at 1,000 as the anchor. Scores above or below 1,000 indicate the model's estimated performance relative to that anchor.
Parentheses show 95% confidence intervals; bold values indicate the highest point estimate in each column.
| Rank | Model | Composite (95% CI) | Character consistency | Motion quality | Shot continuity | Style understanding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Seedance 2.5 | 1,077 (1,058–1,098) | 1,045 (985–1,101) | 1,084 (1,035–1,134) | 1,091 (1,028–1,145) | 1,007 (956–1,066) |
| 2 | Seedance 2.0 | 1,054 (1,035–1,074) | 1,063 (1,005–1,119) | 1,029 (982–1,074) | 1,085 (1,028–1,141) | 1,057 (1,007–1,107) |
| 3 | Wan 3.0 | 1,039 (1,020–1,059) | 997 (939–1,055) | 1,052 (994–1,104) | 1,057 (1,000–1,113) | 1,037 (984–1,091) |
| 4 | Seedance 2.0 Mini | 1,021 (1,002–1,042) | 967 (907–1,023) | 1,078 (1,030–1,126) | 1,026 (963–1,089) | 994 (945–1,041) |
| 5 | MiniMax H3 (anchor) | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 |
| 6 | Google Omni Flash | 999 (979–1,019) | 934 (879–985) | 1,024 (969–1,080) | 990 (929–1,045) | 997 (946–1,049) |
| 7 | Flux 3 Video | 970 (951–989) | 946 (892–990) | 1,004 (957–1,051) | 959 (908–1,012) | 913 (853–976) |
| 8 | Grok Imagine 1.5 | 953 (933–975) | 967 (902–1,027) | 953 (900–1,003) | 947 (881–1,011) | 926 (871–984) |
| 9 | HappyHorse 1.1 | 947 (927–966) | 905 (842–965) | 943 (887–993) | 950 (886–1,014) | 938 (898–980) |
| 10 | PixVerse V6 | 920 (899–942) | 905 (836–971) | 911 (860–956) | 895 (836–951) | 912 (848–978) |
| 11 | Kling 3.0 Omni | 918 (896–941) | 935 (869–995) | 887 (821–952) | 888 (825–941) | 859 (810–909) |
The confidence intervals show how much uncertainty surrounds the point estimates, so the rank order alone cannot support every model-to-model conclusion.
Why the confidence intervals matter more than the rank order
Composite scores on this board carry intervals of roughly plus or minus 20 points. Criterion scores carry roughly plus or minus 55, because each criterion is fit on a slice of the votes rather than all of them. The wider criterion intervals make small differences between models less conclusive.
The composite results separate several parts of the ranking more clearly than the criterion results. Seedance 2.5's interval of 1,058 to 1,098 has only a one-point overlap with Wan 3.0's interval of 1,020 to 1,059. However, the entire top four do not sit clear of Google Omni Flash because Seedance 2.0 Mini's interval of 1,002 to 1,042 overlaps Google Omni Flash's interval of 979 to 1,019.
The criterion intervals do not clearly separate the top four models.
- Character consistency. Seedance 2.0's interval of 1,005 to 1,119 overlaps Seedance 2.5's interval of 985 to 1,101 across much of their ranges. The published intervals do not establish that the 18-point score difference reflects better performance.
- Motion quality. Seedance 2.5's interval of 1,035 to 1,134 overlaps Seedance 2.0 Mini's interval of 1,030 to 1,126 almost completely. These individual confidence intervals are not a direct test of the difference between the two models.
- Shot continuity. Seedance 2.5's interval of 1,028 to 1,145 and Seedance 2.0's interval of 1,028 to 1,141 are nearly identical. These individual intervals alone do not establish a clear winner on this criterion.
- Style understanding. Seedance 2.0's interval of 1,007 to 1,107 overlaps Wan 3.0's interval of 984 to 1,091. Seedance 2.5's interval of 956 to 1,066 also overlaps both.
Arena's confidence intervals show how much uncertainty surrounds each estimate. Readers can use them to avoid treating small score differences as conclusive, although direct pairwise testing would be needed to determine whether two models differ significantly.
Where the criterion scores show larger gaps
The Character consistency intervals provide stronger evidence for deprioritizing some lower-scoring models than for choosing among the leaders.
Seedance 2.0's Character consistency interval starts at 1,005, while Google Omni Flash tops out at 985, Flux 3 Video at 990, and HappyHorse 1.1 at 965. Those non-overlapping intervals provide stronger evidence of a difference than the small gaps among the leaders. They support deprioritizing these models for recurring-character tests, but they do not measure every requirement of a production workflow.
Kling 3.0 Omni sits last overall at 918 and last on Style understanding at 859, with an interval that never reaches 910. Its Motion quality tops out at 952, below Seedance 2.5's floor of 1,035.
The board can narrow a shortlist more confidently than it can select a winner among models with heavily overlapping intervals. A production test should make the final choice using your references, prompts, shot types, and acceptance criteria.
How to read Character consistency and Motion quality separately
Arena reports Character consistency and Motion quality separately because a clip can preserve identity while producing incoherent movement, or move coherently while changing the character.
Character consistency estimates how well an output preserves the referenced character in the board's character-focused task. Arena does not publish separate scores for the face, costume, proportions, or anatomy. Motion quality assesses whether bodies, objects, and environments move coherently through time. A model can hold a face perfectly through a static dialogue beat and deform the same character's arms during a run cycle.
Your production test should distinguish identity persistence within a clip from consistency across separate generations. Arena's Shot continuity criterion evaluates continuity within its published task, but the board does not establish that a model will preserve a recurring character across independently generated scenes.
Reference conditioning is intended to help preserve identity across generations, but its effect varies by model and workflow. Test every finalist with the same approved reference because the Arena ranking does not measure your specific cross-scene production setup.
Arena publishes sample clips associated with the criterion results. The Character consistency prompt asks for a 10-second vertical circus scene built around a supplied reference face, and all eleven attempts sit in one row on the Animation board.
How to choose an animation model with this board
Work in three passes rather than reading down the rank column.
Pass one. Build a shortlist from the composite. Seedance 2.5, Seedance 2.0, Wan 3.0, and Seedance 2.0 Mini hold the four highest point estimates. Seedance 2.0 Mini's interval overlaps Google Omni Flash's, so the published intervals do not support a clean boundary between fourth and sixth place.
Pass two. Compare the criterion that matters most. For character-led work, the Character consistency results provide stronger evidence against Google Omni Flash, Flux 3 Video, HappyHorse 1.1, and PixVerse V6 than against the leading models. For motion-heavy work, Kling 3.0 Omni, PixVerse V6, and HappyHorse 1.1 have substantially lower Motion quality estimates than the leaders. Treat these results as reasons to prioritize tests rather than as universal exclusions.
Pass three. Compare factors the board does not score. Review current price, clip length, resolution, audio settings, and generation mode on the relevant model pages, then run a controlled reference test. OpenArt provides current details for Seedance 2.5, Seedance 2.0 and Seedance 2.0 Mini, and Wan 3.0. Compare like-for-like configurations because Arena does not score cost or production constraints.
For a short, motion-heavy sequence, Seedance 2.0 Mini merits a direct test against Seedance 2.5. Its Motion quality score is 1,078, compared with Seedance 2.5’s 1,084, with substantially overlapping confidence intervals. These intervals do not establish equivalent motion quality. Test both models on the shots intended for production.
How to run the test the board cannot run for you
Take the two or three survivors and give each the same character reference, the same prompt wording, the same aspect ratio and the same duration.
Generate a short sequence rather than one clip. Include a close-up and an action shot across a scene change, then repeat the action at higher motion intensity. Use one approved reference image for every shot and keep it fixed.
Review identity and movement separately. Compare identity cues such as the face and costume across every shot. Then inspect anatomy, contact points, backgrounds, and object interactions separately. A recognisable face can hide broken anatomy or an incoherent environment. Arena does not publish an anatomy, face or hand score, so this pass is yours.
Judge the sequence, not the best clip in it. Count how many generations each usable shot took, then divide total spend by the clips you would actually publish. Retry rate can make a lower-priced model more expensive per usable shot, so record generation cost and the number of attempts required for the same output configuration.
Readers new to how these scores are produced will find the judging process, the anchor model and the vote weighting explained in what OpenArt Arena is.
Frequently asked questions
Which AI video model ranks first on OpenArt Arena for animation?
Seedance 2.5, with a composite score of 1,077 and a 95 percent confidence interval of 1,058 to 1,098. Seedance 2.0 follows at 1,054 and Wan 3.0 at 1,039.
Which model has the best character consistency?
Seedance 2.0 has the highest reported Character consistency score at 1,063. Its confidence interval overlaps Seedance 2.5’s substantially, so the individual intervals alone do not establish a clear winner.
Does OpenArt Arena publish a separate character-consistency score?
Yes. Character consistency is a named Animation criterion carrying 17.5 percent of the composite, alongside Motion quality, Shot continuity and Style understanding at the same weight. General capabilities make up the remaining 30 percent.
Why are the criterion scores less certain than the composite?
Each criterion is fit on a slice of the votes rather than the full set, so its interval is wider. On this board composites carry roughly plus or minus 20 points and criteria roughly plus or minus 55. Arena publishes both, which is what makes the distinction visible.
Does a high Animation rank mean better faces or hands?
No. Arena publishes no anatomy, face or hand score. Character consistency reflects identity preservation in the board's character-focused task. Arena does not publish separate accuracy scores for faces, hands, or anatomy.
How should pricing affect the choice?
Check each model page for current pricing under the same resolution, duration, audio, and generation settings. Arena scores quality rather than cost, so compare total spend per usable shot after a controlled production test.
How much do reference images matter?
Reference images can affect identity preservation, but the effect varies by model and workflow. Use the same approved reference for every finalist so your comparison measures model performance rather than differences in source material.
Where can I see the clips behind these scores?
The Animation board publishes the sample generations for each criterion, including the character-consistency prompt that runs one supplied reference face through all eleven models.