Seedance 2.5 vs Wan 2.7
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.
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 2.5 | Wan 2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Blind quality index (0–100) | 80 | not yet scored |
| Median time, submit to finished clip | 386 s | 114 s |
| p90 time | 938 s | 162 s |
| Completion rate | 91% | 100% |
| Credits, 5 s at 720p | 30 | 17 |
| ≈ USD at the best credit rate | $5.70 | $3.23 |
| Longest single clip | 30 s | 15 s |
| Native audio | Yes | Yes |
| Starts from text alone | Yes | Yes |
| Production renders behind these numbers | 1,352 | 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 $22.23 less than Seedance 2.5. 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 2.5
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 2.5
Newest Seedance generation. Native audio, optional last-frame control, clips up to 30 seconds.
ByteDance · 1,352 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
These are the two text-to-video engines people actually end up choosing between: one is the flagship, the other is the workhorse that quietly carries the most production traffic on the platform. Both start from a prompt alone, so neither forces the extra step of producing an image first.
The flagship buys length and a scored quality record. The workhorse buys time and certainty — it returns far sooner at the median and its completion record is the strongest in the catalogue, which matters more than it sounds: a render that fails is not just a wait, it is a wait followed by the same wait again.
The honest framing is that these two are not really competing for the same job. Seedance 2.5 is for the finished piece that needs room to breathe. Wan 2.7 is for the twenty ideas you need to see before you know which one deserves that.
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 2.5 spreads from 386 s to 938 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
Wan 2.7 has no blind quality score, so the output comparison here is not available at any confidence. This page compares what is measured — length, price, turnaround and completion — and stops there.
Where each one wins
Choose Seedance 2.5 when
- The finished shot needs to run longer than 15 seconds.
- You want last-frame control to chain one shot into the next.
- You want the engine with a published blind score rather than an unscored one.
Choose Wan 2.7 when
- You are exploring ideas from text and want to see many of them quickly.
- The render has to come back inside a predictable window.
- Cost per attempt matters, and this is the cheaper of the two per clip.
What a real job costs
Six finished clips, allowing one reject in three — 9 runs:
- Seedance 2.5 — 270 credits, about $51.30, roughly 58 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
Can both Seedance 2.5 and Wan 2.7 work from text alone?
Yes. Both accept a written prompt with no start image, which is what makes them the natural pair to weigh when you are beginning from an idea rather than a picture.
Which one finishes more reliably?
Wan 2.7 has the strongest completion record in the video catalogue, measured as finished clips against submitted renders on production traffic. Both completion rates are published on this page.
Is Seedance 2.5 worth the extra credits over Wan 2.7?
It depends entirely on length. Past 15 seconds Wan 2.7 cannot do the job at all, so the question does not arise. Inside 15 seconds you are paying more for a scored quality record and last-frame control.
Which is quicker to get a result from?
Wan 2.7, by a wide margin at the median, and with a much shorter slow tail. Both figures are measured from submit to finished clip across a rolling 60-day window of production traffic.
Do both generate their own audio?
Yes. Each engine outputs a native audio track alongside the clip, so neither needs a separate soundtrack step in the studio.