Wan 3.0 | Is it Better than Seedance 2.5?

In this article, we’ll share our honest review of Alibaba’s Wan 3.0.

Alibaba just released Wan 3.0, its latest AI video model, and this update brings some pretty major upgrades.

Wan 3.0 can generate videos up to 30 seconds long, work with multiple types of reference assets, and create 1080p video for significantly less than some of the leading AI video models.

But how good is it actually?

In this article, we’ll share our honest Wan 3.0 review, break down the biggest new features, and compare it against Seedance 2.5 and other leading AI video models.

Wan 3.0 | Full Review

Check out our full tutorial and see all the tests we ran with Wan 3.0.

Wan 3.0 | Honest Review

Below is our full breakdown after testing Wan 3.0.

What Is Wan 3.0?

Wan 3.0 is the latest version of Alibaba’s Wan AI video model.

Previous versions of Wan were open-weight, meaning you could download the models and run them locally. Wan 3.0 expands the platform into a much more capable multimodal video generation system.

You can upload:

Up to 10 reference images
Up to 5 video clips
Up to 5 audio clips
Documents and scripts
Website URLs

Wan 3.0 can then use those assets together to generate videos up to 30 seconds long in 1080p.

Wan 3.0 also supports native audio generation and a Smart Duration feature that can automatically determine how long your generated clip needs to be.

This makes Wan 3.0 particularly interesting for longer scenes where you need to maintain characters, environments, props, and other visual details across multiple shots.

The Good: Wan 3.0 Handles Complex References Surprisingly Well

One of our first tests involved building an entire antique market scene using multiple character sheets, location references, and supporting objects.

Wan 3.0 did a surprisingly good job of incorporating those references into a single generation.

In this test, both Wan and Seedance stayed relatively close to our uploaded reference images, with many of the supporting objects appearing in scene.

But Seedance took more creative liberties and produced more noticeable artifacts, so we actually preferred Wan in this test.

Where Wan 3.0 Starts to Struggle

The results became much more inconsistent once we pushed the model into more complicated scenes.

1. Character Consistency and Compositing: Wan 3.0 struggled to keep characters consistent and naturally integrated into the scene.

We tested a scene involving a character running away from aliens using several reference images.

The result wasn't great. Character consistency started to break down, and the compositing occasionally looked more like a bad green screen effect than a naturally generated environment.

When we ran the same test through Seedance 2.5, the lighting and compositing felt significantly more natural and cinematic.

2. Emotional Performance: Wan 3.0 can deliver surprisingly convincing performances, but continuity is still a problem.

We tested a dramatic conversation between two characters inside a cafe.

Wan’s facial performances had a surprising amount of emotional resonance, especially from a single generation.

But there were still some major continuity problems, like background elements changing between shots and skin textures looking overly detailed.

When compared to Seedance 2.5, Seedance still produced the stronger overall emotional performance.

3. VFX and Action: Wan 3.0's visual effects are hit or miss, especially when scenes get more complex.

In our asteroid test, some of the explosions and particle effects looked surprisingly good. But the overall VFX integration wasn't as convincing as Seedance 2.5.

For cinematic VFX and more complex sequences, Seedance 2.5 still feels more reliable.

4. Lip Sync: This was one of Wan 3.0's biggest weaknesses in our testing.

We uploaded a character image along with a song (using the black box audio trick) and asked Wan 3.0 to generate a performance.

The result struggled to accurately match the character's mouth movements to the audio.

We also compared the test against MiniMax H3 and Seedance 2.0.

MiniMax generated an entirely new section of the song that wasn't in the original audio, while Seedance 2.0 gave us the strongest overall lip sync of the three.

If accurate dialogue or musical performances are important to your project, Wan 3.0 probably isn't our first choice right now.

Is Wan 3.0 Better than Seedance 2.5?

After running all of these tests, we still think Seedance 2.5 is the better overall AI video model.

It produced stronger results for emotional performances, visual effects, compositing, lip syncing, and complex multi-shot scenes. But it didn't win every test.

Wan 3.0 did a surprisingly good job with reference-heavy scenes.

But the biggest difference is price.

The real question becomes: Is Seedance 2.5 four times better than Wan 3.0?

In many cases, we don't think it is.

We'd still choose Seedance for important character moments and complex cinematic scenes, but for establishing shots and supporting footage, Wan 3.0 can get surprisingly close for a fraction of the cost.

That makes Wan 3.0 a practical workhorse for filmmakers generating a lot of footage.

Final Verdict: Wan 3.0 Review

Wan 3.0 isn't the most polished AI video model we've tested, but with 30-second generations, 1080p output, multimodal references, and significantly lower costs, it offers a lot of value.

For filmmakers generating a lot of footage, Wan 3.0 is a powerful workhorse model worth considering.

Free Course | Intro to AI Storytelling

Fill out the form below and gain access to our free intro to AI storytelling course. We would love to see you in there.

We can't wait to welcome you into our community and see what you create.