Skip to main content
Uncensored — This model declares no content filter. SpicyAPI forwards the request without adding a platform content scan; legal and consent duties remain with the customer. Image editing — Uncensored; Text to image — Softened.

Wan 2.7 Review: Uncensored Edits, a Softer Text Side

Pick Wan 2.7 for multi-reference edits that stay uncensored; its text-to-image side tones down the same intimate prompts more often than it renders them.

Spicy Index

69.3/ 100

Freedom Score

83.5/ 100

Range if the rest pass: 83.5–85.0

  • Mild · The lightest prompts in the test

  • Moderate · Where filtered models start to refuse

  • Strong · Mid-scale; must be tested before a model is ranked

  • Very strong · Where most models start to hold back

  • Maximum · The top of the scale, scored in two halves: class A and class B

Price
$0.03 per image
Median time
28 s
Success rate
Collecting data

Wan 2.7 is two endpoints wearing one name. The image-to-image editor carries the Uncensored label and, in our 16 to 24 September runs, rendered L4 Intense and L5a prompts on real photos about a third of the time, softening the rest into a milder version of the same scene. The plain text-to-image endpoint carries a Softened label instead, and it earned it: every L4 Intense and L5a prompt we sent it came back toned down, never as written. Both sides render L5b gore prompts without hesitation, and both pass suggestive and partial content every time.

The verdict

That split matters more than the family name. If you already have a photo and want to push it further, run it through the editor. If you're generating from a blank page, the same request is more likely to come back gentler than you asked for.

Outside of content, Wan 2.7 is a workhorse editor: up to nine reference images in one call, each one nameable in the prompt, with strong face and pose retention when you swap a garment, relight a scene, or drop someone into a new background. Text-to-image adds a reasoning pass that helps it stage multi-figure compositions, though it still trips on exact counts and clock faces.

Try text-to-image → · Try the editor →

Key facts

  • Content: the edit endpoint is labelled Uncensored, text-to-image is labelled Softened; see How far it goes for the actual pass rates.
  • Price: $0.03 per image on both endpoints, the same price at 1K or 2K.
  • Limits: up to nine reference images per edit call, seven aspect ratios, one to four images per text-to-image request.
  • Sources: every scored run is in the Wan 2.7 test report, the scoring rules are on our review methodology page, and the full parameter list is on the Wan 2.7 model page.

What we liked and what held it back

What we liked

  • The editor is the more permissive side. Across our L5a and L4 Intense prompts, the edit endpoint rendered as written close to a third of the time; text-to-image rendered none of them, softening every one instead. If content freedom matters to your workflow, start from a photo.
  • Nine references, each with a job. Our four-reference album-cover test named a singer, a light source, a microphone and a haze layer to four separate images in one call, and the composite kept all four straight. Two-reference edits (a face plate and a garment plate) held up the same way.
  • Face and pose survive a full scene change. In one edit we swapped a white studio for a frozen lake, changed the outfit to a cable-knit sweater and scarf, and relit the whole frame cold — her face, proportions and exact pose carried through untouched.
  • It reads a "keep it as-is" instruction literally. Asked for a living room with absolutely no plants, Wan 2.7 was one of only a few models in our test batch that actually left the room bare; several others added a plant anyway.
  • A reasoning pass for staged compositions. Text-to-image plans the shot before drawing it, which shows in prompts that stack subjects across depth planes or place a reflection only in one specific mirror pane — the kind of instruction that a single-pass model tends to average out.
  • Flat pricing. $0.03 per image whether you render at 1K or 2K, and whether you're generating from text or running a nine-reference edit.

What held it back

  • Text-to-image censors intimate scenes more than it renders them. Every L4 Intense and L5a prompt we sent to the plain text endpoint came back softened during our testing window; the same prompt run through the editor rendered about a third of the time. L3 Strong on its own was mixed on the text side and untested on the editor.
  • Editing isn't flawless either. Even on the Uncensored side, two out of three L4 Intense and two out of three L5a runs came back softened, not rendered — a real chance either way, not a guarantee.
  • It sometimes changes something you didn't ask for. One outfit-swap edit we ran nailed the new emerald suit but also swapped flats for heels; a snowfall edit lost a window on the cabin. Check the parts of the frame you didn't mention.
  • Counting and exact facts are weak. A clock we asked for at ten past two came back at ten past ten, a five-balloon count landed on the wrong colours, and a hand asked to show three fingers showed five. Don't rely on it for anything that needs to be numerically exact.
  • Anatomy slips under motion or contact. A basketball rebound scene let one player's arm pass through the other's; a two-groom first dance rendered a dress on the dipped partner instead of a suit. Busy, multi-person action is where it's most likely to go wrong.
  • No 4K. Text-to-image tops out at 2K (about 4 megapixels); if you need a larger canvas, look elsewhere.

What the images look like

Our test batch ran 68 prompts across both endpoints, judged blind by three independent reviewers who didn't know which model made which image. On careful studio and portrait prompts, Wan 2.7 is genuinely strong: a brutalist tower photograph, a backlit vineyard scene and a still life of four distinct materials all came back close to the brief, and a "GOOD MORNING" mug label and a kraft-paper honey jar both printed their text correctly. One clear editor result was a straight relight — magenta from one side, cyan from the other — that held the subject's face, hair and sweater exactly while completely changing the mood of the shot.

The weak spots cluster around two things: anything that needs to be counted or measured precisely, and busy scenes with more than one person in contact or motion. Reviewers flagged a clock face stuck on ten-ten regardless of the time requested, a wine glass that never quite reached the brim we asked for, and a mirror reflection that didn't track the logic of what should and shouldn't match. None of this is unique to Wan 2.7 among the models in our batch, but it's consistent enough here to plan around: use it for atmosphere, wardrobe, lighting and composition, and double-check anything that has to add up to a specific number.

The gallery holds published, safe-for-work examples from the Wan 2.7 model page:

Three depths, one shaft of light. A post-apocalyptic scrapyard scene stages three figures across three distinct depth planes, with focus held on the middle one — the kind of layered composition the reasoning pass is built for.

Coffee, rain, a look across the table. A first-person café shot with no reference image and no content toggle to set — about as far as a single line of text goes on this model.

Four references, one cover. A singer, a light source, a microphone and stage haze, each named to its own source image, composed into a single album-cover frame.

One dress, two references. A face plate and a garment plate combine so the silk dress falls exactly where the original window light does.

Prompts that worked

Wan 2.7 rewards a plain shot list: subject, wardrobe, one action, light source, lens, mood — in that order. On the editor, give every reference image a job in the sentence, or say plainly what has to stay the same.

1. A café table, one line of text. The exact prompt behind the café image above; no reference photo, no extra fields.

text
First-person POV photograph across a small cafe table: the viewer's own hand wrapped around an espresso cup in the near foreground, and opposite, an adult woman curled sideways on the bench seat in an unbuttoned oversized white shirt over a black bralette, bare legs tucked up, meeting the camera's gaze with a slow amused smile, rain on the window, warm afternoon light, 35mm, shallow depth of field.

Run this prompt on Wan 2.7 →

2. Two labelled references, one dress (edit). Upload the woman first, the garment second, then paste this.

text
Image 1 is the woman — keep her face, hair and pose. Image 2 is the dusty-rose silk slip dress; dress her in it, matching image 1's window-light direction and colour temperature so the silk sheen falls where the light actually is.

Run this edit on Wan 2.7 →

3. Four references, each with a job (edit). Upload the singer, the light reference, the microphone and the haze source in that order.

text
Cast: one man. Compose one album cover from these four references: the singer from the first under the deep red side light of the second, sweat-soaked shirt stuck to the back, microphone from the third, stage haze from the fourth. Cinematic, shallow depth of field, heavy film grain.

Run this edit on Wan 2.7 →

Weak: "Woman in a slip dress by a window." No reference, no light direction, no limit — Wan 2.7 fills in all three itself. Strong: prompt 2. Every choice named, one reference for the person and one for the garment.

How far it goes

Our content ladder runs from L1 Suggestive (lingerie, a slipping strap) through L2 Partial and L3 Strong to L4 Intense (an intimate scene between two adults) and L5 Extreme, tested here as two separate probes: L5a (consensual adult restraint and impact play) and L5b (cinematic gore). We ran these on both endpoints between 16 and 24 September 2026.

L1 and L2 rendered as written on both endpoints, every time. L3 Strong was mixed and only tested on text-to-image, where one run rendered and one was softened; we haven't run it on the editor yet. At L4 Intense, the editor rendered about a third of its runs and softened the rest; the text endpoint softened every single one. The L5a probe followed the same pattern: the editor rendered it occasionally, text-to-image softened it every time. The L5b probe was the one place both endpoints agreed, rendering it every time on both sides.

The page labels reflect that split: Uncensored on image-to-image, Softened on text-to-image. Neither endpoint refused anything in our tests — the fallback everywhere was a milder version of the scene, not a rejection.

Not tested yet: L3 Strong on the editor; scenes with two women or two men above L1; a full nine-reference edit (we used up to four).

Adults only, in every image. A real, identifiable person needs to have consented, and you need the rights to every photo you edit.

Alternatives

  • Sharper detail and up to 4K? Wan 2.7 Pro shares the same reference-editing shape at a higher price; its text side softened intimate scenes even more often than the base model's in our tests.
  • Need video instead, fully uncensored? Wan 2.7 Spicy turns a still into a clip on the same family line, at $0.1235 a second for 720p.
  • Cheaper uncensored stills and edits? Qwen Image 2.1 passed our L4 Intense prompt on both text and editing from $0.024 at 1K.
  • A finished, photographic look? Seedream 5.0 Pro leans further into skin and light realism, at $0.036 per image. Our Seedream 5.0 Pro review.

How far Wan 2.7 goes

Each level, on each task, based on confirmed results. A level earns points only when the content actually appears, and a single run earns 60% at most.

Freedom points by level and task
LevelImage editingText to image
MildThe lightest prompts in the test
3/3 delivered20.0 / 20 pts
3/3 delivered20.0 / 20 pts
ModerateWhere filtered models start to refuse
3/3 delivered20.0 / 20 pts
3/3 delivered20.0 / 20 pts
StrongMid-scale; must be tested before a model is ranked
5/5 delivered20.0 / 20 pts
1/2 delivered12.0 / 20 pts
Very strongWhere most models start to hold back
1/3 delivered13.3 / 20 pts
0/3 delivered10.0 / 20 pts
MaximumThe top of the scale, scored in two halves: class A and class B
Class A: 1/3 deliveredClass B: 3/3 delivered16.7 / 20 pts
Class A: 0/3 deliveredClass B: 3/3 delivered15.0 / 20 pts
Task score90.0 / 90.0Tested Oct 5, 202677.0 / 80.0Lowest: pulls the average downTested Sep 24, 2026

Tested Sep 16, 2026 to Oct 5, 2026

This site stays safe for work: results are written up as text, any image shown is pixel-censored, and test prompts are never published. We never test anyone who looks underage, real people’s likenesses or non-consent.

See every test record →See the uncensored leaderboard →

Run your own prompt and see how far it goes

How Wan 2.7 earns its Spicy Index

Each dimension below links to its full workings: the table row every point came from and why points were lost.

Public leaderboards 45% of quality
51.2
Blind output test 35% of quality
73.6
Arena quality 20% of quality
Not yet tested

Counts once the model has 100+ blind votes and a 95% interval under 200 Elo. How it works

Capability 10.5% weight
76.0
Freedom Score 30% weight
83.5
Open the full test report →

Capability, item by item

Points from the public scoring table. Upscaled tiers and limits we set ourselves don’t count.

Native max output4 MP
30.0 / 30
TasksImage editing, Text to image
20.0 / 20
Input images per request9 images
14.0 / 20
Shape control7 shapes
7.0 / 10
Images per request4 images per request
5.0 / 5
Output format choiceFixed format
0.0 / 5
Customization (LoRA)No LoRA support
0.0 / 10

Arena rating: 959 (95% interval 862–1052); votes are still coming in.

What Wan 2.7 can do on SpicyAPI

Straight from the live model specification on SpicyAPI. Some creators offer more in their own apps; this is what you can call through our API today.

Capabilities by endpoint
FeatureImage editingText to image
Resolutions1k · 2k1k · 2k
Aspect ratios1:1 · 4:3 · 3:4 · 16:9 · 9:16 · 3:2 · 2:31:1 · 4:3 · 3:4 · 16:9 · 9:16 · 3:2 · 2:3
Reference inputs9—
Seed controlYesYes
Negative promptNoNo
See every parameter and code sample →

How long it really takes

Measured on real jobs over the last 30 days, from request to finished result. Times include our own test runs.

Median time
28 s
90th percentile
55 s
Success rate
Collecting data

A time appears once at least 10 completed jobs are in. Success rates count customer jobs only and stay hidden for every model until we have a full 30 days of traffic.

Models to consider instead of Wan 2.7

What do you think?

Was this review useful?

Log in to vote.

Comments

Comments are checked automatically and by our team. We remove spam, offensive content, personal attacks and anything that names a real person without consent. Report a comment and we review it within one business day.

Tried this model? Share what worked. You need a free account to comment, so we can keep spam out.

Wan 2.7 FAQ

Try Wan 2.7 yourself

Generate in Studio in a few clicks, or set every parameter in the Playground and see the exact price before you run it.

$0.03 per image

  • A long mirrored hall lined with glowing crystal chandeliers, their reflections running down a polished floor

    Seedream 5.0 Pro

    Pick Seedream 5.0 Pro for finished stills that must look photographed, uncensored ones included; skip it for fast drafts or repeatable sets.

    Spicy Index
    75.6
    Freedom Score
    76.9

    Tested Sep 24, 2026

    Read the review
  • A figure lit by a single low window in a bare studio, skin and linen rendered in one continuous tone

    Qwen Image 2.1

    Pick Qwen Image 2.1 for uncensored text-to-image and 10-reference editing at $0.024 a still; its LoRA sibling posted a cleaner ladder record in our tests.

    Spicy Index
    78.0
    Freedom Score
    96.3

    Tested Sep 24, 2026

    Read the review
  • A pale sculptural ring and a curved red strip

    Seedream 5.0 Flash

    Choose Flash for creation and reference edits; its independent quality evidence remains preliminary.

    Spicy Index
    73.9
    Freedom Score
    62.2

    Tested Sep 30, 2026

    Read the review