Reading spec sheets is a terrible way to choose an AI video model — they all claim to be the best, and the numbers don't tell you how a model feels to use. So let's compare the two latest members of Alibaba's Wan family the way you'd actually shop: you have a project in hand, you need a video out of it, and you need to know which tool gets you there.
Wan 2.7 (released April 2026) is the proven workhorse of the previous generation. Wan 3.0 (public beta since August 6, 2026) is the new flagship — bigger, more ambitious, and still finding its footing. Spoiler: neither is universally "better." The right answer depends on your deadline, your budget, and how long your video needs to be.
The spec sheet, for the record
| Spec | Wan 2.7 | Wan 3.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Release | April 2026 (production) | Aug 6, 2026 (public beta) |
| Model lineup | 4 models: t2v, i2v, r2v, videoedit | 1 unified all-in-one model |
| Max length per run | 15s (t2v/i2v), 10s (r2v/videoedit) | 30s in one take |
| Resolutions | 720p, 1080p | 480p, 720p, 1080p |
| Inputs | Text, image, video, audio | Text, image, video, audio, documents, web links |
| Reference slots | Up to 5 | 10 images + 5 videos + 5 audio |
| Video continuation | Yes (source clip 2–10s) | Built-in extension |
| Prompt format | One paragraph per shot | Timestamped shot list |
| Open weights | No (video models) | No (API-only beta) |
| Where to run | Alibaba + third-party platforms | Alibaba first-party platforms only |
| Price (Beijing) | 720p ¥0.6/s, 1080p ¥1.0/s | 480p ¥0.3/s, 720p ¥0.6/s, 1080p ¥1.2/s |
What the specs don't tell you: how they actually feel
Both top out at 1080p — and that's the first myth to kill. If you've seen "Wan 3.0 native 4K" repeated on comparison sites, ignore it. Alibaba's official demo files are 1920×1072 or 1280×720, and the API price list has exactly three tiers: 480p, 720p, 1080p. No 4K exists in either generation, so resolution alone shouldn't decide your choice.
The biggest visible upgrade is consistency. Wan 2.7 keeps a character recognizable within a single session, but push a story across multiple shots and faces start drifting. Wan 3.0 was built around fixing exactly this: Alibaba claims cross-shot, pixel-level consistency of characters, props, scenes and spatial relations. In practice that's the difference between "this is clearly the same person" and "…wait, her eyes just changed color." If your project is a multi-shot narrative, this matters more than any other spec on the sheet.
Audio is where the generations split. Wan 2.7's reference-based audio (R2V) can match a voice, but it can't give you music, and you'll assemble sound in a separate tool. Wan 3.0 generates dialogue, sound effects and music in the same pass — genuinely new for the Wan family. The honest caveat: Alibaba itself admits beta audio quality and on-screen text accuracy still need work. Think of 3.0's audio as a great rough draft, not delivery-ready mastering.
Long-form is a category change, not a tweak. Wan 2.7 caps at 15 seconds (10 seconds for reference and editing workflows), so anything longer means stitching clips together — and seams are where continuity dies. A single 30-second Wan 3.0 generation gives you room for a full scene, a product reveal with a beginning and an end, or a short narrative that never changes angle mid-clip.
Where Wan 3.0 shines
Wan 3.0 feels like the model you reach for when you want to direct, not assemble:
- 30 seconds in one run — enough for a complete scene, product reveal or mini-story without stitching
- Documents become videos — drop in a Word/Excel/PPT/PDF/Markdown file (≤100 MB / 50 pages) or a web link and get a narrated presentation, the feature driving most marketing and education interest
- One model instead of four — t2v, i2v, r2v and video editing all live in a single model, plus first/last-frame control and extension
- Up to 10 images + 5 videos + 5 audio references per generation, which is what makes the cross-shot consistency possible
- Native audio — dialogue, SFX and music come out together, no separate pipelines
Where Wan 3.0 falls short
The flip side is that it's a beta — and a walled one:
- API-only. No open weights, no local deployment, no ComfyUI, no fine-tuning. The "Apache 2.0 open source" story floating around is a recycled rumor (the 1.3B + 14B spec belongs to Wan 2.1); the Wan family's open-weight era effectively ended at Wan 2.2.
- Alibaba platforms only, for now. You can't shop it across third-party providers the way you can 2.7.
- No 4K — and 1080p costs ¥1.2/s, roughly 20% more than 2.7.
- Rough edges. Beta audio quality and text-in-video accuracy are honest weak spots.
- A new prompting skill. 3.0 wants a timestamped shot list; 2.7 wants one paragraph per shot. Your old prompts won't transfer structurally.
Why Wan 2.7 is still worth it
It's easy to dismiss last year's model, but 2.7 is the reliable friend who shows up:
- Production-stable and everywhere. No application gate, no beta label, and it runs on the third-party platforms you may already be using.
- Cheaper at 1080p — ¥1.0/s vs ¥1.2/s adds up fast when you generate a lot.
- Proven controls. First/last frame, multi-image grid input for image-to-video, a dedicated video-editing endpoint, natural-language dialogue and camera edits — all mature and well documented.
- A gentler prompt format. One paragraph per shot is easier to master than a timestamped storyboard.
- Video continuation works today (source clip must be 2–10 seconds).
What Wan 2.7 can't do
- Long takes. 15 seconds max per run (10 for reference/editing) means every longer video is a stitching job.
- Cross-shot consistency. Only 5 reference slots, and consistency lives within a session — push to multiple shots and drift creeps in.
- No document input, no native music. Both are 3.0 exclusives.
- No 480p tier, if you want the cheapest possible output.
The money question
Per second, the two models are the same at 720p (¥0.6/s) and Wan 3.0 is about 20% more at 1080p. But you don't pay per second, you pay per finished video — and that's where the gap appears. A 30-second 1080p clip on Wan 3.0 costs roughly ¥36 in one run. On Wan 2.7 the same length means two 15-second clips at roughly ¥30, plus your time stitching them into something seamless. At 720p both land around ¥18, so the real premium is at higher resolution. Treat these as beta-era snapshots rather than promises.
So, which one?
If your video needs to run longer than 15 seconds, starts from a document, depends on a character staying recognizable across shots, or needs music baked in — Wan 3.0 is the model for you, beta warts and all. If you're cranking out short social clips, working on a budget at 1080p, or need a stable pipeline you can plug into today, Wan 2.7 is still the pragmatic choice.
And honestly, most teams end up using both: 3.0 for the hero shots and long-form pieces, 2.7 for the quick-turnaround, budget-sensitive runs. Run the same prompt and the same reference images through both before you commit to a workflow — the numbers are one thing, but seeing the difference with your own eyes is the only review that counts.
Try Wan 3 and Wan 2.7 side by side on wan3video.io — same prompt, same references, and you can see the difference in minutes.
