GUIDE · TEXT TO VIDEO
Text-to-video cost
Text-to-video looks simple, but the cost depends heavily on prompt iteration. This page explains how to budget prompt-based AI video without underestimating failed generations.
What drives text-to-video cost?
- Prompt ambiguity: vague prompts need more retries.
- Scene complexity: people, hands, logos, text and physics increase failures.
- Model tier: premium models cost more but can reduce unusable outputs.
- Length: longer clips multiply every mistake.
| Prompt type | Cost risk | Budget tip |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract motion background | Low | Use budget models and low retake profile. |
| Product ad | High | Use image references or short scene chunks. |
| Human dialogue | High | Budget for extra takes and audio review. |
| Cinematic establishing shot | Medium | Premium model may reduce retries. |
Related cost pages
Compare with image-to-video cost, retake calculator and Sora cost calculator.
FAQ
Is text-to-video cheaper than image-to-video?
Not always. Text-to-video has no image prep cost, but ambiguous prompts can need more retries.
How can I reduce text-to-video cost?
Use shorter shots, specific prompts, reference images where possible and cheaper models for drafts.
What is the biggest hidden cost?
Prompt iteration: changing wording, re-running generations and discarding outputs until one works.
Need exact project math? Use the ClipBudget calculator to compare Sora, Veo, Runway, Kling, Seedance, Wan and Vidu with a realistic retake buffer.