GenMagic logoGenMagic
Sign in

Wan 2.7 vs Veo 3.1

Alibaba against Google. Prices, scores and speed below are live.

  • Wan 2.7 costs 75% less on price per second ($0.15 against $0.60 per second at the cheapest setting).
  • People prefer Veo 3.1 in blind votes on LMArena's text-to-video arena: rated 1,363 against 1,337 Elo.
  • On the 2 benchmarks both have scores on, Wan 2.7 leads on 1 and Veo 3.1 on 1.
  • Wan 2.7 is newer: listed Apr 15, 2026, against Mar 23, 2026.
Try Wan 2.7Try Veo 3.1

Side by side

Wan 2.7Veo 3.1
LabAlibabaGoogle
ListedApr 15, 2026Mar 23, 2026
Per second, cheapest setting$0.15$0.60
Per second, top setting-$0.90
A typical clip$0.75$2.40
Resolutions720p, 1080p720p, 1080p, 4K
Clip length2 to 10 s4 to 8 s
Opens on your imageYesYes
Follows reference imagesYesNo
Arena rating (LMArena)1,337 Elo1,363 Elo

Every benchmark both are scored on

Each model's best score per benchmark, with its source. Scores from different sources or settings are not always comparable; each links to where it was published.

BenchmarkWan 2.7Veo 3.1
LMArena: Image to Video1428 EloLMArena1399 EloLMArena
LMArena: Text to Video1337 EloLMArena1363 EloLMArena

In our tests and guides

Where Wan 2.7 or Veo 3.1 ran on a real brief, or shows in a live table.

More comparisons

Where these figures come from

Prices are GenMagic's own, what the studio and the API charge, recomputed from each provider's price list every few minutes. The ratings are LMArena's blind human votes, and every benchmark score links to its source, re-read daily. Measured speed is GenMagic's own generation records, in aggregate. See Alibaba models, Google models, every video model's price and our sources.