Wan vs Veo
Wan offers a wider low-cost ladder on this site: 8-credit 2.2 drafts, 25-credit 2.5 480p native-audio clips, and 50-credit 2.7 720p clips. The catalog's Veo 3 entry is a premium five-second tier at 200 credits. Use Veo only when its provider capability is worth testing after the shot has already been proven cheaply.
Current site tiers
| Five-second choice | Credits | Practical role |
|---|---|---|
| Wan 2.2 720p draft | 8 | motion and prompt test |
| Wan 2.5 480p | 25 | native-audio iteration |
| Wan 2.7 720p | 50 | newer Wan workflow |
| Veo 3 catalog entry | 200 | premium alternative |
Capabilities are version-specific
Do not compare “Wan” and “Veo” as single timeless products. The provider now documents Veo 3.1 standard/fast tiers, 720p through 4K, audio toggles, image/reference modes, and extension. Wan 2.7 documents text, first/last-frame image, continuation, and edit workflows at 720p/1080p. The exact endpoint selected determines the real comparison.
Decision rule
Draft with Wan 2.2. If audio is required, try Wan 2.5 or 2.7. Escalate to a premium Veo tier only for a shot where its documented resolution, reference, extension, or audio workflow is specifically needed. A higher price is not evidence that every prompt will produce a better result.
Sources: fal video pricing, Veo 3.1 provider page, and Wan 2.7 schema. Last checked August 12, 2026.
Frequently asked questions
Is Veo more expensive than Wan?
For the specific site tiers listed above, yes. Provider versions and audio/resolution settings change cost, so compare the exact endpoint and duration displayed before generation.
Which one has native audio?
The hosted Wan 2.5/2.7 workflows and the documented Veo 3/3.1 workflows include native-audio options. Wan 2.2's low-cost draft tier should be treated as visual-first.
Which should I use for a first prompt test?
Use the cheapest model that can test composition and motion. Upgrade only after the instruction works; this reduces paid failed takes regardless of the final model.