Table of Contents
If you want the short answer, use Wan 2.2 for narrow, fast jobs.
Use Wan 2.7 when control matters.
That is the real split on Wan 2.7.
Quick Comparison
| Category | Wan 2.2 | Wan 2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Best role | Fast, structured task workflows | Higher-control creative production |
| Main modes | Text to Video, Image to Video, Speech to Video, Animate Move, Animate Replace | Text to Video, Image to Video, Reference to Video, Video Edit |
| Resolution in this project | 480p, 580p, 720p | 720p, 1080p |
| Clip length in this project | T2V fixed at 5s, speech up to 10s, animate fixed at 1s | 5s and 10s workflows |
| Standout strength | Simpler, narrower job types | More control, references, and editing |
| Example price | 5s T2V at 720p = 35 credits | 5s T2V at 720p = 35 credits, 5s at 1080p = 55 credits |
The interesting part is the cost line.
At 5 seconds and 720p, Wan 2.2 text-to-video and Wan 2.7 text-to-video both land at 35 credits in the current project.
So the real choice is not just price. It is workflow fit.
When Wan 2.2 Is the Better Pick
Wan 2.2 is better when the job is already well defined.
That includes:
- a short prompt-led motion test
- a portrait plus audio talking clip
- a narrow source-video transformation
- a quick draft where speed matters more than cinematic control
Wan 2.2 still has one advantage many people overlook: it offers specialized modes.
If you want a speaking portrait, Speech to Video is clearer than forcing a general-purpose workflow to behave like an avatar tool.
If you want a tiny source-media transformation, Animate Move and Animate Replace are cheaper and more direct than overusing a bigger model.
Some current Wan 2.2 examples on wan27.org:
- Text to Video, 5s, 720p: 35 credits
- Image to Video, 5s, 720p: 35 credits
- Speech to Video, 720p: 11 credits per second
- Animate Move, 1s, 720p: 6 credits
- Animate Replace, 1s, 720p: 6 credits
When Wan 2.7 Is the Better Pick
Wan 2.7 is better when you need the model to behave more like a production tool than a draft tool.
That includes:
- first-frame and last-frame control
- multi-reference character guidance
- reference voice input
- prompt-based video editing
- cleaner 1080p output options
This is where Wan 2.7 earns the extra attention.
You are not just buying raw generation. You are buying control over the revision loop.
Current Wan 2.7 examples on wan27.org:
- Text to Video, 720p: 7 credits per second
- Text to Video, 1080p: 11 credits per second
- Image to Video, 720p: 7 credits per second
- Reference to Video, 1080p: 11 credits per second
- Video Edit, 1080p: 11 credits per second
That means:
- a 5-second 720p Wan 2.7 clip costs 35 credits
- a 10-second 720p clip costs 70 credits
- a 5-second 1080p clip costs 55 credits
How I Would Choose
Pick Wan 2.2 if the question is:
- “Can I test this idea fast?”
- “Can I make a short talking clip from one portrait and one audio file?”
- “Can I transform a source motion pattern without paying for more than I need?”
Pick Wan 2.7 if the question is:
- “Can I control the beginning and end of this shot?”
- “Can I keep a character consistent?”
- “Can I edit a clip instead of rerolling it?”
- “Can I work at 1080p when the final export matters?”
The Real Decision Rule
Use Wan 2.2 when the workflow is narrow.
Use Wan 2.7 when the workflow is open-ended and revision-heavy.
That is the cleanest way to avoid overpaying for control you do not need or underbuying when the job clearly needs it.
Bottom Line
Wan 2.2 is still useful. It is not obsolete.
But Wan 2.7 is the stronger default if you care about controllability, references, editing, and cleaner final output.
If you want to compare both workflows directly, start on Wan 2.2 at wan27.org and then check the current plans on wan27.org/pricing.
