Wan 2.7 Pro Edit vs Qwen Image 3.0 Edit
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.
Both engines run in the WowMade image 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 | Wan 2.7 Pro Edit | Qwen Image 3.0 Edit |
|---|---|---|
| Blind quality index (0–100) | 84 | 90 |
| Median time, submit to finished image | 13 s | 44 s |
| p90 time | 78 s | 71 s |
| Completion rate | 99% | 100% |
| Credits per edited image | 2 | 2 |
| ≈ USD at the best credit rate | $0.38 | $0.38 |
| Production edits behind these numbers | 807 | 258 |
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 image 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 Pro Edit costs $0.00 less than Qwen Image 3.0 Edit. 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 Wan 2.7 Pro Edit
AI generated with Qwen Image 3.0 Edit
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
Wan 2.7 Pro Edit
Up to 2K output, multi-image reference up to nine, superior editing quality.
Alibaba · 807 production edits measured · scored over 2 judged prompts
Qwen Image 3.0 Edit
Alibaba flagship editor. Razor-sharp text rendering, faithful detailed edits, up to three references.
Alibaba · 258 production edits measured · scored over 2 judged prompts
Two editors from the same vendor family, at the same price, pulling in different directions. One is built around throughput and reference capacity, the other around getting the details of an instruction exactly right.
Text is the sharpest case of that. Rendering legible words inside an edited image is the failure mode most editors share, and it is the category where Qwen Image 3.0 separates from the field — a label, a sign or a product name surviving an edit is worth more than a point of average score.
Where text is not involved, the reference ceiling swings it the other way. Three times as many reference images is the difference between describing a subject and showing it from several angles, which is what keeps a series consistent.
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 — Wan 2.7 Pro Edit spreads from 13 s to 78 s, Qwen Image 3.0 Edit from 44 s to 71 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
Neither of these is the top-scoring editor in the catalogue. If output quality is the only thing that matters and neither text nor turnaround is the constraint, this pair is the wrong page to be reading.
Where each one wins
Choose Wan 2.7 Pro Edit when
- You are giving the editor several views of a subject and need the higher reference ceiling.
- You are working through a batch and the shorter median turnaround compounds.
- The image has no text in it that has to survive the edit.
Choose Qwen Image 3.0 Edit when
- The image contains words that must stay readable after the edit.
- You want the higher blind score of the two at the same credit cost.
- Prompt precision matters more than throughput for this particular job.
What a real job costs
Six finished images, allowing one reject in three — 9 runs:
- Wan 2.7 Pro Edit — 18 credits, about $3.42, roughly 2 minutes of queue at the median.
- Qwen Image 3.0 Edit — 18 credits, about $3.42, roughly 7 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 Image 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 image editor index.
Every image generated here is AI-generated and carries a signed C2PA content credential saying so. Anyone can check a file on verify.
Questions
Which is better for images with text?
Qwen Image 3.0. Text rendering is scored as its own category on the blind index, and it is the category where this editor separates most clearly from the rest of the catalogue.
Which is faster?
Wan 2.7 Pro Edit at the median, measured from submit to finished image across production traffic over a rolling 60-day window. Both medians are published on this page.
How many reference images does each take?
Wan 2.7 Pro Edit accepts three times as many as Qwen Image 3.0, which is the main capability difference between them when a subject has to stay consistent.
Do they cost the same?
Yes, both are the same number of credits per edited image, so the decision rests entirely on which of the two behaviours the job needs.
Which scores higher overall?
Qwen Image 3.0 sits above Wan 2.7 Pro Edit on the overall blind score, though neither is the highest-scoring editor in the image catalogue.