Kling 4.0 vs Kling 3.0 vs Runway Gen-4 Turbo: Same Three Architectural Renders, Side by Side
Kling 4.0 arrived in late October 2026, and the first question an architect or interior designer asks of any new video model is simple: does it keep my building straight, and is it worth paying more than the model I already use?
We answered it the only way that means anything: we took three architectural renders, wrote one camera-move prompt per render, and ran the identical input through Kling 4.0, Kling 3.0 and a deliberately cheap option, Runway Gen-4 Turbo. Nine clips, all 5 seconds at 720p, generated on 28 October 2026 through Visiomake's production pipeline. Below are the side-by-side videos, the measured costs and render times, and where each model earns its price if you make AI video from architectural renders for clients or social media.
Do this in VisioMake
Turn an architectural render into a video
Upload one finished render, describe the camera move, and get a short clip with parallax, moving light and sky. No model export, no animation rig, no render farm.
Try it nowHow we ran the test
Every variable except the model was held fixed, so the differences you see come from the model:
- Three start frames covering three common render-to-video jobs: an interior living room (16:9), a modern house exterior at golden hour (16:9), and a dusk facade in a vertical 2:3 frame. All three are AI-generated renders we made for Visiomake's own pages, not client work.
- One prompt per scene, shared by all three models. Each prompt names a single camera move (dolly, arc or push-in) and explicitly names what must stay rigid: walls, roof lines, window mullions, cladding.
- Same tier everywhere: 5 seconds, 720p. Kling 3.0 ran in its standard (720p) mode with audio off; Kling 4.0 at its 720p resolution; Runway Gen-4 Turbo at 1280×720 or 720×1280.
- One run per model and scene. AI video varies from run to run, so treat any single clip as one sample, not a verdict.
If you are new to the render-to-video workflow itself, our step-by-step guide to an AI architecture walkthrough video from still renders covers prompt structure and editing; this article is only about which model to pick.
| Kling 4.0 | Kling 3.0 | Runway Gen-4 Turbo | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visiomake price per second, 720p | 50 credits | 25 credits | 10 credits |
| One 5 s clip at 720p | 250 credits (€2.50) | 125 credits (€1.25) | 50 credits (€0.50) |
| Measured generation time (3 clips) | 186–247 s | 92–124 s | 32–33 s |
| Output size, 16:9 input | 1280×716 | 1284×716 | 1280×720 |
| Output size, 2:3 vertical input | 776×1164 | 784×1176 | 720×1280 (we requested 9:16) |
| Audio track | Yes, on every clip (no setting to disable it) | Optional, off in this test | None |
| Longest single clip | 30 s | 15 s | 10 s |
| File size of a 5 s clip | 5.8–7.5 MB | 11.6–16.7 MB | 2.6–3.0 MB |
Prices are what each clip costs in Visiomake credits at the standard rate of €0.01 per credit; Kling 4.0's price applies once it leaves internal testing. Generation times are what our pipeline measured from submission to finished file, so they include the model provider's queue; eight of the nine clips were submitted at the same time, and the fastest Kling 4.0 clip (186 s) is the one that ran alone. At 1080p Kling 4.0 is 75 credits per second, or 375 credits (€3.75) for the same 5-second clip.
Scene 1: interior dolly toward the garden
The prompt asked for a slow, eye-level dolly toward the glass doors, with walls, window frames and furniture staying straight and the plants moving gently.
All three models understood the move, and they end at almost the same depth: the coffee table is about the same size in the last frame of both Kling clips, with Runway stopping marginally further back. In the frames we sampled (every 1.25 seconds), the window frames, the artwork and the sofa stay straight in all three. On a simple interior dolly, the newest and most expensive model bought no visible advantage over the other two.
Scene 2: golden-hour arc around the house
Exteriors are where video models usually give themselves away: a slow arc forces the model to reveal geometry the still never showed, and long roof lines and repeated mullions bend easily.
Here Kling 4.0 made the boldest move, swinging far enough that the left wing turns noticeably toward the camera, while Kling 3.0 and Runway made shallower moves that read more like a slow drift. The roof edges and the window grid stay straight in the sampled frames of all three. If you want a real orbit rather than a gentle drift, Kling 4.0 gave the most motion for the same prompt.
Scene 3: vertical dusk facade for social
The third render is a 2:3 portrait image. This is where the cheap option shows a structural limit rather than a quality one: Runway Gen-4 Turbo only outputs six fixed ratios (16:9, 9:16, 4:3, 3:4, 1:1 and an ultra-wide 1584×672), and none of them is 2:3. We asked for 9:16, which cut about 16% of the render's width, trimming the tree on the left and the edge of the deck; 3:4 would have cut about 11% of its height, split between top and bottom, instead. Both Kling models kept the input's own shape.
On motion the ranking flips: Kling 3.0 pushed in the furthest along the path, while Kling 4.0 and Runway moved about the same, much less: from first to last frame the upper window grew 23% taller in Kling 3.0, against well under 10% in Kling 4.0 and Runway. For a reel that has to match an exact 9:16 template Runway's crop is harmless; for a portfolio piece where the composition was the point, it is not.
What Kling 4.0 adds beyond this test
A 5-second dolly only exercises a fraction of the new model. According to Kling 4.0's published specification, the model also offers:
- Clips up to 30 seconds in one generation, against 15 for Kling 3.0. A full room walkthrough no longer has to be stitched from several clips.
- An end frame plus up to 8 keyframes in between, so you can pin a walkthrough to several of your own renders of the same space.
- Multi-shot prompts, one prompt per shot inside a single video.
- A built-in soundtrack. Every Kling 4.0 clip we generated came back with a stereo audio track, and there is no setting to turn it off. Useful for a social post; for a client presentation with your own music or voice-over, mute or strip it in your editor.
We did not test 1080p, longer clips or keyframes in this round, so we make no claims about them yet.
Kling vs Runway for architecture: which should you use?
- Kling 4.0 when the move matters: a pronounced orbit around a building, or a clip longer than 15 seconds. It was the slowest (3 to 4 minutes per clip) and the most expensive: 50 credits per second at 720p, twice Kling 3.0.
- Kling 3.0 for everyday client clips. It kept the geometry straight in our sampled frames of all three scenes at half Kling 4.0's price (25 credits per second), made the strongest push-in on the vertical facade, and finished in roughly 1.5 to 2 minutes.
- Runway Gen-4 Turbo for drafts, volume and fixed social formats. At 50 credits (€0.50) per 5-second clip and about half a minute per render it is the one to iterate prompts with, as long as your render already matches one of its six fixed ratios or you can accept a crop.
For a wider view of the field, see our roundup of AI tools for architectural animation in 2026, our earlier Runway vs. Kling vs. Pika comparison for architecture renders, and our test of Seedance 2.0 for interior walkthrough videos.
Kling 4.0 is in internal testing at Visiomake at the time of writing and will cost 50 credits per second at 720p and 75 at 1080p when it opens. Kling Video 3.0 and Runway Gen-4 Turbo are available in the image-to-video tool today, paid with credits and no subscription required.