Compare the engines, on numbers
A blind quality score, a median and p90 time measured from submit to finished file, a completion rate and the credit price — for every engine in the studio. Both sides of every comparison run on WowMade, so no figure here is a vendor’s claim.
- 18engines & editors measured
- 9,427production runs behind the numbers
- 60 daysrolling measurement window
- $0.19best per-credit rate, used for every $ figure
Every engine we measure, priced and scored
Cost across, blind quality up, dot size is how much production traffic stands behind the score. Cheap and good is the top-left.
Median time to a finished clip
Submit to finished file, production traffic, 60-day window. Queue time included — it is what you actually wait.
- Wan 3.0 Prime96s
- HappyHorse 1.1110s
- Wan 2.7114s
- MiniMax H3126s
- Seedance 2.0 Fast213s
- Seedance 2.0 Mini254s
- Seedance 2.0260s
- Seedance 2.5386s
- Seedance 2.5 Turbo627s
Credits for a five-second clip
List price in the studio at 720p. The dollar figure is derived at the best plan rate.
- MiniMax H34 · $0.76
- Wan 3.0 Prime10 · $1.90
- Seedance 2.0 Mini10 · $1.90
- Seedance 2.0 Fast15 · $2.85
- Seedance 2.5 Turbo16 · $3.04
- Wan 2.717 · $3.23
- HappyHorse 1.119 · $3.61
- Seedance 2.020 · $3.80
- Seedance 2.530 · $5.70
Head to head
■ Seedance 2.5 vs ■ Wan 3.0 Prime
- Quality
- 80vs79
- Median
- 386svs96s
- Credits
- 30vs10
If you have a start image, Wan 3.0 Prime finishes the same job several times faster for a third of the credits, and scores one point lower on our blind index. If you are starting from a written prompt, Seedance 2.5 is the only one of the two that can do it at all.
Read the comparison →■ Seedream 5.0 Pro Edit vs ■ Qwen Image 3.0 Edit
- Quality
- 95vs90
- Median
- 47svs44s
- Credits
- 2vs2
Both cost the same per edited image, and both finish in well under a minute. Seedream 5.0 Pro scores higher on the blind index and carries far more production traffic behind that score; Qwen Image 3.0 is the one to reach for when the edit has to keep text legible.
Read the comparison →■ Seedance 2.5 vs ■ Seedance 2.5 Turbo
- Quality
- 80vs81
- Median
- 386svs627s
- Credits
- 30vs16
Turbo is roughly half the credits for the same 30-second ceiling, the same entry modes and, on the blind runs so far, the same quality band. The one thing it has not done is live up to its name: on the traffic measured to date its median render is the longer of the two, not the shorter.
Read the comparison →■ Seedance 2.5 vs ■ Seedance 2.0
- Quality
- 80vs79
- Median
- 386svs260s
- Credits
- 30vs20
The generation gap is length, not looks. Seedance 2.5 doubles the ceiling to 30 seconds and adds last-frame control; on the blind index the two sit within a point of each other, and 2.0 costs a third less per clip and returns sooner at the median.
Read the comparison →■ Seedance 2.0 vs ■ Seedance 2.0 Mini
- Quality
- 79vs79
- Median
- 260svs254s
- Credits
- 20vs10
Same generation, same 15-second ceiling, same score on the blind index, and Mini costs half. It gives up exactly one capability for that: it cannot start from a written prompt, so it needs an image to work from.
Read the comparison →■ Wan 3.0 Prime vs ■ Wan 2.7
- Quality
- 79vs—
- Median
- 96svs114s
- Credits
- 10vs17
Wan 2.7 takes a written prompt on its own and returns with the tightest, most predictable spread of any engine in the video catalogue. Wan 3.0 Prime needs a start image, but it reaches 30 seconds, accepts reference images, and has a blind quality score — which Wan 2.7 does not yet have at all.
Read the comparison →■ Seedance 2.5 vs ■ Wan 2.7
- Quality
- 80vs—
- Median
- 386svs114s
- Credits
- 30vs17
Both take a written prompt on their own, which makes this the pair to weigh when all you have is a sentence. Seedance 2.5 renders twice as long and carries a blind score; Wan 2.7 costs less, returns much sooner, and finishes what it starts more reliably than anything else in the catalogue.
Read the comparison →■ Wan 3.0 Prime vs ■ Seedance 2.0 Mini
- Quality
- 79vs79
- Median
- 96svs254s
- Credits
- 10vs10
These two cost exactly the same per clip, both animate a start image, and both score within a point of each other on the blind index. Wan 3.0 Prime wins the pair on everything that is not price: double the length ceiling, reference images, a shorter median and a better completion record.
Read the comparison →■ Seedance 2.0 vs ■ Wan 2.7
- Quality
- 79vs—
- Median
- 260svs114s
- Credits
- 20vs17
Both stop at 15 seconds and both start from a prompt alone, so this pair really is a like-for-like choice. Wan 2.7 costs a little less, returns much sooner and completes more of what it starts; Seedance 2.0 is the one of the two with a blind quality score.
Read the comparison →■ Seedream 5.0 Pro Edit vs ■ Seedream 5.0 Lite Edit
- Quality
- 95vs95
- Median
- 47svs39s
- Credits
- 2vs1
Lite costs half of Pro, takes the same number of reference images, reaches the same output resolution and has so far scored in the same band on the blind index. The difference that is real today is evidence: Pro has thousands of production edits behind its number and Lite has a handful.
Read the comparison →■ Seedream 5.0 Pro Edit vs ■ Seedream 4.5 Edit
- Quality
- 95vs95
- Median
- 47svs18s
- Credits
- 2vs2
Same credits, same maximum resolution, same scoring band so far. The newer generation more than doubles the reference images it will accept, which is the capability difference; the older one has been returning faster on the small sample it has so far.
Read the comparison →■ Seedream 5.0 Pro Edit vs ■ Wan 2.7 Pro Edit
- Quality
- 95vs84
- Median
- 47svs13s
- Credits
- 2vs2
Identical price, and the clearest speed-against-quality trade in the image catalogue. Wan 2.7 Pro Edit returns in a fraction of the time at the median; Seedream 5.0 Pro scores materially higher on the blind index, and both have real production volume behind their numbers.
Read the comparison →■ Wan 2.7 Pro Edit vs ■ Qwen Image 3.0 Edit
- Quality
- 84vs90
- Median
- 13svs44s
- Credits
- 2vs2
Same credits again, and the split is speed against precision. Wan 2.7 Pro Edit comes back sooner at the median and accepts three times the reference images; Qwen Image 3.0 scores higher on the blind index and is the one to use when the image contains text that has to stay readable.
Read the comparison →■ Qwen Image 3.0 Edit vs ■ Qwen Image 2.0 Edit
- Quality
- 90vs87
- Median
- 44svs—
- Credits
- 2vs2
Take 3.0. It costs the same, accepts three reference images against one, scores higher on the blind index, and — the part that decides it — has real production traffic behind those numbers, while 2.0 has not yet been run enough on this platform to report a timing at all.
Read the comparison →■ Seedream 5.0 Lite Edit vs ■ Wan 2.7 Pro Edit
- Quality
- 95vs84
- Median
- 39svs13s
- Credits
- 1vs2
Seedream 5.0 Lite is the cheapest editor in the catalogue and has so far scored at the top of the blind index; Wan 2.7 Pro Edit costs more per image and scores lower, but comes back sooner and carries hundreds of production edits behind its figures rather than a handful.
Read the comparison →How we compare
Quality is blind
Every engine runs the same prompts at matched settings and the results are scored without knowing which engine produced them. The score is only comparable inside this index — it is not a vendor benchmark.
Speed is production, not a lab
Median and p90 come from live traffic over a rolling 60-day window and include queue time, because queue time is what you actually wait.
Prices are the list price
Credits are what the studio charges. Dollar figures are derived at the best plan rate of $0.19 per credit and labelled as derived wherever they appear.
Everything is marked as AI
Every file generated on WowMade carries a signed C2PA content credential recording that it is AI-generated. Any file can be checked on verify.
Plans are Start at $25, Go at $60 and Premium at $95 per month. Plans renew monthly until cancelled and can be cancelled online at any time; new purchases are processed by Whop. Full prices are on pricing details. The complete datasets are on the video model index and the image editor index.