Seedance 2.0 vs Wan 2.7
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.
Both engines run in the WowMade video studio, so every number below comes from the same production queue rather than from either vendor. Blind quality index v0.1, run 2026-09-02; speed and completion measured over a rolling 60-day window.
The numbers
| Measure | Seedance 2.0 | Wan 2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Blind quality index (0–100) | 79 | not yet scored |
| Median time, submit to finished clip | 260 s | 114 s |
| p90 time | 481 s | 162 s |
| Completion rate | 96% | 100% |
| Credits, 5 s at 720p | 20 | 17 |
| ≈ USD at the best credit rate | $3.80 | $3.23 |
| Longest single clip | 15 s | 15 s |
| Native audio | Yes | Yes |
| Starts from text alone | Yes | Yes |
| Production renders behind these numbers | 800 | 1,754 |
USD is derived at the Premium credit rate of $0.19 per credit and is shown for comparison only. Full prices and the rate every figure derives from are on pricing details.
The same numbers, seen
Five views of the table above: how long the wait actually feels, how wide the slow tail runs, where these two sit among every engine we measure, how much blind score each credit buys, and what a job of your size costs on each.
A finished clip is the flag. Median means half of all runs land faster than this, half slower.
Engines without a blind score yet are not plotted. Hover a grey dot for its name.
Higher is more blind-index score per credit spent. Built from a v0.1 index, so it inherits that index’s uncertainty — bars within a few percent of each other are not ranked, and an engine with no score is absent rather than last.
At 9 runs, Wan 2.7 costs $5.13 less than Seedance 2.0. A Start plan at $25 carries 75 credits, Go $60 carries 250, Premium $95 carries 500. Plans renew monthly until cancelled and can be cancelled online at any time.
The same prompt, on both
A blind score is a number, not a picture, and at this end of the index the numbers sit close enough that the picture is the more useful of the two. Here is one brief run on each engine, at its own settings.
AI generated with Seedance 2.0
AI generated with Wan 2.7
Both were run from the one prompt every engine on the site is given, each at its own settings — the same sample each shows on its own model page. Nothing is retouched and nothing is cherry-picked. Paste it into the studio and you can run it yourself:
A colossal whale carved from liquid mercury breaches through a sea of floating obsidian shards, molten gold light pouring from the seams in its hide, slow orbital camera, volumetric god rays, drifting embers, hyper-detailed, cinematic, no people
Both files are AI-generated and carry a signed C2PA content credential saying so. Anyone can check either one on verify.
What each one is
Seedance 2.0
Seedance 2.0 at full quality. Native audio, four resolutions up to 4K.
ByteDance · 800 production renders measured · scored over 2 judged prompts
Wan 2.7
Realistic human motion and faces. 720p and 1080p, up to 15 seconds.
Alibaba · 1,754 production renders measured
Two generalists with the same ceiling and the same entry modes is the closest this catalogue gets to a straight substitution. Most of the table is near enough to a tie that the decision comes down to how each behaves under load rather than what it can do.
Wan 2.7 behaves better on that axis. It returns sooner at the median, its slow tail is dramatically shorter, and it finishes a higher proportion of the renders it accepts. Those three together are what a working session actually feels like.
What Seedance 2.0 has is a published score and a family. If you want a measured quality number attached to the engine you are using, it is the only side of this pair that offers one, and its prompts carry cleanly to the rest of the Seedance tiers if you later need more length.
How to read the table
Median is the middle time across the window, so half of all runs land faster than the figure shown. p90 is the slow tail: nine runs in ten finish inside it. The gap between the two is the number to watch when you are planning a session — Seedance 2.0 spreads from 260 s to 481 s, Wan 2.7 from 114 s to 162 s. A wide spread means the queue, not the model, decides your afternoon.
Completion rate is the share of submitted runs that finished. It is not a quality measure — a run can complete and still be wrong for you — but a low rate means retries, and retries cost credits. Quality is a blind score out of 100 and is only comparable inside this index; it is not a vendor benchmark and it is not comparable to anyone else’s number.
What the numbers do not say
Only one side is scored, so treat this as a comparison of price and behaviour rather than of output. If the deciding factor for you is measured quality, Seedance 2.0 is the only engine here that has one.
Where each one wins
Choose Seedance 2.0 when
- You want an engine with a published blind quality score rather than an unscored one.
- Your other shots are on Seedance tiers and you want prompts to carry across.
- You expect to move up to a longer-running Seedance tier later in the same project.
Choose Wan 2.7 when
- You want the shorter median wait and a far shorter slow tail.
- You want the strongest completion record in the catalogue behind your render.
- You are price-sensitive per clip and the two sit close enough on everything else.
What a real job costs
Six finished clips, allowing one reject in three — 9 runs:
- Seedance 2.0 — 180 credits, about $34.20, roughly 39 minutes of queue at the median.
- Wan 2.7 — 153 credits, about $29.07, roughly 17 minutes of queue at the median.
Credits come from a WowMade plan: Start at $25, Go at $60 or Premium at $95 per month. Plans renew monthly until cancelled and can be cancelled online at any time; new purchases are processed by Whop. The full price list is on pricing details.
How these numbers were produced
Quality is the WowMade Video Quality Index v0.1, run 2026-09-02: every engine runs the same prompts at matched settings and the results are scored blind. Speed and completion rate are production telemetry over a rolling 60-day window, not a lab test — they include queue time, because that is what you actually wait. Every engine we measure, including the ones not on this page, is published on the video model index.
Every clip generated here is AI-generated and carries a signed C2PA content credential saying so. Anyone can check a file on verify.
Questions
Are Seedance 2.0 and Wan 2.7 interchangeable?
Close to it. Both cap at 15 seconds, both accept a written prompt with no start image, and both output native audio, so most jobs could be run on either.
Which one is quicker?
Wan 2.7 at the median, and the gap widens on the slow tail. Both figures are measured from submit to finished clip across production traffic over a rolling 60-day window.
Does Wan 2.7 have a quality score?
Not yet. It has not been through a blind scoring run, so the index leaves that cell empty rather than estimating a number from vendor material.
Which is cheaper per clip?
Wan 2.7, by a small margin at the comparison tier. The exact credit cost for each is in the table on this page and on the video model index.
Can I switch between them mid-project?
Yes. Both live in the same video studio on one credit balance, and because both take plain prompts a shot description moves between them without being rewritten.