Skip to main content
$1 on usClaim your $1 + trialTerms apply

Seedream 5 Pro vs Wan 2.7 Pro

A recorded operational comparison from 2026-10-01. One prompt, one completed generation per model; no visual-quality scoring.

One completed request per model on 2026-10-01. Charges are historical USD amounts.
ModelCompletion timeGeneration chargeReturned dimensions
Seedream 5 Pro46.4 s$0.0351024 × 1024
Wan 2.7 Pro14.0 s$0.0601024 × 1024

What this run shows

Both outputs were 1024 × 1024. Wan 2.7 Pro completed sooner in this run, while Seedream 5 Pro had a lower recorded generation charge. Different internal quality settings mean equal dimensions do not make the workloads equivalent.

Do not use these single samples to predict your next request or rank overall model quality. Queue load, model changes, and settings affect results. No average, percentile, or reliability rate is inferred.

Shared prompt

A photorealistic editorial photograph of a small red ceramic teapot beside exactly two yellow lemons on a pale oak table, a folded blue linen napkin on the right, soft morning window light from the left, realistic shadows and fine surface textures, a simple cream wall, eye-level composition, no people, no logos, no text.

Recorded settings

Seedream 5 Pro

quality
basic
aspect_ratio
1:1
nsfw_checker
true
output_format
png
View current model details and pricing

Wan 2.7 Pro

n
1
seed
0
watermark
false
resolution
1K
aspect_ratio
1:1
thinking_mode
false
enable_sequential
false
View current model details and pricing

Method and limitations

Source: Artifio’s production image-model smoke test, recorded through the normal generation flow. Completion time is the server-reported interval from generation creation to completion, including Artifio processing. It is not provider-only inference time or the time until the browser displayed the result. No reference images were supplied. Explicit prompt enhancement was disabled where exposed.

The requested square composition produced different pixel dimensions across some models. Quality controls differ, and the runs were not simultaneous. Each listed charge is the recorded generation debit, not an all-in account funding cost or a current price quote. These completed requests had no recorded generation refunds.

Customer media and account identifiers are not published. This numeric report cannot support a visual-quality comparison. A broader evaluation would require repeated runs, multiple task prompts, and separately reviewed public example outputs.