Kling 3.0 vs Wan 3.0: Same-Prompt Test and Price

We gave both models the same three 5-second 720p prompts on October 25, 2026. Wan 3.0 won two of the three tests, and Kling 3.0 took the skate action shot. At list price, a 5-second 720p clip with sound costs $0.63 on Kling 3.0 and $0.50 on Wan 3.0.

Need a clip longer than 15 seconds? Only Wan 3.0 goes to 30. Wan 3.0 Prime is Alibaba's pricier tier at $0.14 a second at 720p.

Both models are on OmniaKey: Kling 3.0 and Wan 3.0.

How we tested

• Models and IDs: kling-3.0 and wan3.0-video on OmniaKey. Kling's own API calls its 3.0 model kling-v3.
• Settings we sent, exactly: Kling text to video {"mode": "std", "duration": 5, "aspect_ratio": "16:9"}, Kling image to video {"mode": "std", "duration": 5}, Wan for both {"duration": 5, "resolution": "720P", "ratio": "16:9"}. Kling's std mode outputs 720P.
• October 25, 2026, through the OmniaKey API. 3 prompts, 1 clip per model per prompt, 6 clips in all, and every task succeeded on the first try.
• The first frame for test 3 came from Nano Banana 2.1 (2K, 16:9), so neither video model animated its own image.
• Time is from sending the job to the task showing succeeded, queue time included.
• We watched every clip and compared frames at the same moments. We asked whether the action and the camera move match the prompt, whether the sign and label text is right, and whether the first frame holds. Sound is measured as mean loudness in dB.
• OmniaKey sells API access to both models, so we ran the tests through it. Every price below is Kling's or Alibaba's own list price, not ours.
• Sources: Kling's API pricing page and API capability map, plus Alibaba Model Studio's pricing page, Wan 3.0 API reference and Wan 3.0 guide, each checked October 25, 2026.

That is one clip per prompt per model, and video models vary from run to run.

Three tests, same prompts

Test 1: Skate ollie over a puddle (text to video, 16:9)

This test checks whether the board clears the water and where the camera sits.

Prompt:

Tracking shot at golden hour on an empty concrete plaza. A teenage skateboarder in a mustard hoodie rolls toward a shallow puddle, pops an ollie over it and lands cleanly on the far side. The rear wheel clips the edge of the puddle and throws a small arc of water. Low warm sun, long shadows, handheld camera following at hip height. Sound: wheels rumbling on concrete, the clack of the board landing, a splash.

• Kling 3.0 (323.8 s): The skater rolls up, ollies over the puddle and lands cleanly on the far side, with water spraying as the board passes. The camera stays at hip height, so the skater's head is out of frame for most of the clip. Behind is a concrete wall in warm, low sun with long shadows.
• Wan 3.0 (153.5 s): Full body in frame, with a low glass-fronted building and trees behind in golden light. The ollie comes at about 2.3 s, the board lands inside the puddle at about 2.9 s with a big splash, and the skater rolls away on the far side.

Verdict: Kling 3.0. It did the move the prompt describes: over the puddle and a clean landing. Wan made the nicer-looking scene, but the board landed in the water. If the action has to match your script, use Kling 3.0 and keep the camera instruction in the prompt when you want the head in frame.

Test 2: Night noodle stall with a sign (text to video, 16:9)

This test checks the sign text, the push-in and whether the cook stays visible.

Prompt:

Night street food stall, medium shot with a slow push-in. An elderly cook in a white apron tosses noodles in a flaming wok; steam and sparks rise under a single hanging bulb. Behind him a red neon sign reads NOODLES in capital letters. A customer on the right hands over a paper ticket. Wet pavement reflects the neon. Sound: sizzling oil, the clang of the wok, distant street chatter.

• Kling 3.0 (193.6 s): The sign is correct, with flames, steam, the hanging bulb and a customer's hand giving a paper ticket from the right. Noodles fly high at the start, the street behind is dark and empty, and the camera barely moves. By 4.6 s the bulb sits in front of the cook's face and the wok is nearly empty.
• Wan 3.0 (144.2 s): The sign is correct, with flames, sparks and a customer on the right holding out a paper ticket. Behind the cook is a busy market street with people walking on wet, reflecting pavement, and the camera pushes in slowly. The background signs carry fake, unreadable characters.

Verdict: Wan 3.0. Both spelled the sign right. Wan gave the slow push-in we asked for and kept the cook's face visible. In Kling's clip the bulb covers his face by the end. Wan's background signs are fake text, so add "no other signs" for clean frames.

Test 3: Perfume bottle orbit from a still photo (image to video, 16:9)

This test checks whether a product photo survives a camera move, with the cap and two lines of label text. Nano Banana 2.1 made the frame first, then both models animated it.

First-frame prompt:

Studio product photograph of a square glass perfume bottle with a gold cap standing on wet black slate. The front label is cream paper with the word AURELIA in black serif capitals and "eau de parfum · 50 ml" in small type underneath. Water droplets on the glass and the stone, a soft key light from the left, dark background, wide 16:9 frame with the bottle in the center.

Motion prompt:

The camera slowly orbits to the right around the perfume bottle. Water droplets slide down the glass and a soft beam of light sweeps across the label. Keep the bottle, the gold cap and the label text exactly as they are. Sound: a quiet drip of water.

• Kling 3.0 (73.5 s, output 1284×716): Keeps the bottle, the gold cap and the label "AURELIA" with the small "eau de parfum · 50 ml" line through the clip. A small turn to the right, and a faint light beam at the end. The sound track is almost silent at −53.7 dB mean.
• Wan 3.0 (100.0 s, output 1280×720): Keeps the bottle, the cap and both label lines readable. Orbits further right, so by 4.9 s the bottle is seen at an angle, with a soft light beam sweeping in from the upper left. The track has short sharp peaks about once a second.

Verdict: Wan 3.0, narrowly. Both kept the label text sharp. Wan moved the camera further, as asked, and its track carries sound, while Kling's is close to silent. Kling finished this one faster.

Results by test

Sound, speed and price per clip

Sound

Both models returned a sound track on every clip: 5.04 s, MP4 with AAC stereo. Higher is louder, and the numbers are mean loudness measured with ffmpeg.

Kling's own API treats sound as a switch that is off by default and costs more per second. In Alibaba's API, Wan 3.0 has audio on by default at one price per resolution, and audio=false turns it off.

Speed

Time from sending the job to succeeded, queue included:

Wan finished both text-to-video clips first. Kling finished the image-to-video clip first.

Price

Kling bills per second of video, per Kling's API pricing page checked October 25, 2026. One Unit is $0.14 at list price.

Alibaba bills per second of video, input seconds included when you send a video, per its Model Studio pricing page checked October 25, 2026.

Alibaba shows the wan3.0-video prices as list prices, with a limited-time 30% discount on the page. The Prime prices carry no discount label.

What a whole clip costs at those rates, from each vendor's price page:

With sound, Wan costs less at 720P and Kling costs less at 1080P. Without sound, Kling's 720P rate of $0.084 a second is the lower of the two at 720P.

For OmniaKey's current rates, see the Kling 3.0 and Wan 3.0 model pages.

What about Kling 4.0 and Wan 3.0 Prime?

Kling's API capability map, updated October 20, 2026, now lists kling-4.0 first, with 3–30 second clips. OmniaKey sells kling-3.0, and that is what we ran.

Wan 3.0 Prime is Alibaba's pricier tier at $0.14 a second at 720P, or $0.70 for 5 seconds. OmniaKey's docs describe Prime as "same capabilities, roughly half the turnaround", and our runs used the standard tier.

Pros and cons

Kling 3.0

• Pros: the most exact action of the two; kept the first frame and the label text; fastest on image to video at 73.5 s.
• Cons: slowest text-to-video clip at 323.8 s; dark, empty backgrounds; the hanging bulb hid the cook's face; almost silent image-to-video track; a 15-second limit.

Wan 3.0

• Pros: the busiest, most realistic scenes; clear camera moves; faster text to video; clips up to 30 seconds; sound on by default at one price.
• Cons: landed in the puddle; fake text on background signs; Alibaba still lists it as "currently in preview".

Which one for which job

Run the same test through one API

This request sends the noodle stall prompt to Wan 3.0:

curl https://api.omniakey.com/v1/media/tasks \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $OMNIAKEY_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Idempotency-Key: noodle-stall-001" \
  -d '{
    "model": "wan3.0-video",
    "type": "video",
    "operation": "text_to_video",
    "input": {"prompt": "Night street food stall, medium shot with a slow push-in. An elderly cook in a white apron tosses noodles in a flaming wok; steam and sparks rise under a single hanging bulb. Behind him a red neon sign reads NOODLES in capital letters. A customer on the right hands over a paper ticket. Wet pavement reflects the neon. Sound: sizzling oil, the clang of the wok, distant street chatter."},
    "parameters": {"duration": 5, "resolution": "720P", "ratio": "16:9"}
  }'

1. The reply is 202 with a task id.
2. Fetch https://api.omniakey.com/v1/media/tasks/{id} every few seconds until status is succeeded. A video job can take several minutes, so keep polling the same id instead of resubmitting.
3. Download the clip from assets[0].url.

For Kling 3.0, set model to kling-3.0 and send {"mode": "std", "duration": 5, "aspect_ratio": "16:9"}; durations are exactly 5, 10 or 15 seconds. To animate a photo, set operation to image_to_video and send the frame as input.media with type set to first_frame and a url that is an https link or a data URL. Drop aspect_ratio for Kling, because the frame sets the shape.

Open the Kling 3.0 and Wan 3.0 model pages to start a run, and the video API docs for every parameter.

Common questions

Is Kling 3.0 better than Wan 3.0?

It depends on the clip. Kling 3.0 did the skate trick exactly as written, and Wan 3.0 won the street scene and the product orbit, with clearer camera moves and louder sound. Both kept the sign and label text right, so pick Kling 3.0 for a scripted move and Wan 3.0 for a busy scene.

Which is cheaper, Kling 3.0 or Wan 3.0?

At list price, a 5-second 720p clip with sound costs $0.50 on Wan 3.0 and $0.63 on Kling 3.0. At 1080P the order flips: $0.84 on Kling 3.0 and $1.00 on Wan 3.0. Without sound, a 5-second 720p Kling clip costs $0.42, and Wan's 720P price stays $0.50 with or without audio.

How long can Kling 3.0 and Wan 3.0 videos be?

Kling's API takes whole seconds from 3 to 15, and Wan 3.0 takes 2 to 30 seconds. On OmniaKey, kling-3.0 accepts exactly 5, 10 or 15 seconds, and wan3.0-video takes 2 to 30.

Is Wan 3.0 open source?

Wan 3.0 is not released as open weights; earlier Wan versions, up to Wan 2.2, are. The AlibabaCloud-Official Wan3.0 repository holds a license and a README, with no weights or model code.

Do Kling 3.0 and Wan 3.0 make sound?

Both do. Every clip in our test came back with an AAC stereo track inside a 5.04 s MP4. In Kling's API, sound is a switch that is off by default and costs more per second. Wan 3.0 has audio on by default at one price, and audio=false turns it off.

Update log

• October 25, 2026: first version, three same-prompt tests run the same day.