Wan 3.0 Prime vs Wan 2.7
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.
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 | Wan 3.0 Prime | Wan 2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Blind quality index (0–100) | 79 | not yet scored |
| Median time, submit to finished clip | 96 s | 114 s |
| p90 time | 246 s | 162 s |
| Completion rate | 96% | 100% |
| Credits, 5 s at 720p | 10 | 17 |
| ≈ USD at the best credit rate | $1.90 | $3.23 |
| Longest single clip | 30 s | 15 s |
| Native audio | Yes | Yes |
| Starts from text alone | No — image required | Yes |
| Production renders behind these numbers | 1,341 | 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 3.0 Prime costs $11.97 less than Wan 2.7. 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 3.0 Prime
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
Wan 3.0 Prime
Image-to-video with reference-image guidance, native audio, up to 1080p and 30 seconds.
Alibaba · 1,341 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
Most pages in this family weigh a quality score against a price. This one cannot, because only one of the two engines has been scored. What Wan 2.7 has instead is the most consistent timing record on the platform: its slow tail sits remarkably close to its median, which is the profile you want when something has to come back inside a predictable window.
Wan 3.0 Prime is the more capable engine on paper — double the length ceiling, reference-image guidance that holds a subject across a clip, and a published blind score. The cost of that capability is the entry mode: it will not start without a picture.
So the split is unusually clean. If you have a prompt and a deadline, 2.7 is the engine that takes both. If you have a frame and an idea that needs room, 3.0 Prime is the one built for it. Reaching for the newer version number by default is the one thing this pair does not support.
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 3.0 Prime spreads from 96 s to 246 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
One side of this pair is unscored. Wan 2.7 has plenty of production traffic behind its timings but has not been through a blind quality run, so any claim that either engine looks better than the other would be invented rather than measured.
Where each one wins
Choose Wan 3.0 Prime when
- The shot needs to run past 15 seconds in a single unbroken render.
- You want reference images guiding the subject rather than a prompt alone.
- You want an engine with a published blind quality score behind it.
Choose Wan 2.7 when
- You are starting from a written prompt and have no image to animate.
- Predictability matters more than the ceiling: its slow tail sits unusually close to its median.
- You are working to a deadline where a long tail on one render would be the problem.
What a real job costs
Six finished clips, allowing one reject in three — 9 runs:
- Wan 3.0 Prime — 90 credits, about $17.10, roughly 14 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
Which is better, Wan 3.0 Prime or Wan 2.7?
We cannot answer that on quality, because Wan 2.7 has not been through a blind scoring run yet. On capability, 3.0 Prime reaches 30 seconds and takes reference images; on entry mode and predictability, 2.7 accepts a prompt alone and has the tighter timing spread.
Why does Wan 2.7 have no quality score?
It has not been through a blind index run. The index publishes a score only for engines that have been scored, and leaves the cell empty otherwise rather than estimating one from vendor material.
Can Wan 3.0 Prime start from text?
No. It requires a start image. Wan 2.7 is the engine in this pair that accepts a written prompt with nothing else attached.
How long can each one run?
Wan 3.0 Prime renders up to 30 seconds in one generation. Wan 2.7 stops at 15 seconds, so a longer single shot has to come from 3.0 Prime or from the Seedance 2.5 family.
Which one is more predictable?
Wan 2.7. The distance between its median and its slow tail is the smallest in the video catalogue, which is what makes it the safer pick when a render has to land inside a known window.
Do both produce audio?
Yes. Both engines output a native audio track with the clip, and both are selectable from the model picker in the same video studio.