{"id":5764,"date":"2026-03-24T19:47:08","date_gmt":"2026-03-24T11:47:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crepal.ai\/blog\/?p=5764"},"modified":"2026-03-24T19:47:09","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T11:47:09","slug":"ltx-2-3-vs-wan-2-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/crepal.ai\/blog\/aivideo\/ltx-2-3-vs-wan-2-2\/","title":{"rendered":"LTX 2.3 vs WAN 2.2: Best Open-Source Video Model in 2026?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Hey you guys! I’m Dora \u2014 and last week I did something a little obsessive even by my standards. I had a short product clip to make for a client. Nothing fancy: 5 seconds, clean motion, portrait format for Reels. I had both LTX 2.3<\/a> and WAN 2.2<\/a> open on my machine at the same time. And instead of just picking one and getting the job done, I ended up running the same prompt through both models for three hours straight, taking notes like a complete nerd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article, therehence, is the result of that session. If you’re trying to decide between these two open-source models right now \u2014 here’s what I actually found.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quick Verdict (one-line answer for each use case)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Pick LTX 2.3 if:<\/strong> You shoot portrait content (TikTok, Reels), want to run fully local, need fast iteration, or care about audio-video sync in one pipeline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pick <\/strong>WAN<\/strong> 2.2 if:<\/strong> Motion realism is your top priority, you want proven open-weight stability, and you don’t mind a heavier ComfyUI setup.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Core Specs Comparison Table (resolution, fps, audio, VRAM, speed)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>LTX 2.3<\/td>WAN 2.2<\/td><\/tr>
Parameters<\/td>22B<\/td>14B (standard) \/ 1.3B (lite)<\/td><\/tr>
Max resolution<\/td>4K (native) \/ 1080p portrait<\/td>720p local; 1080p via API<\/td><\/tr>
FPS options<\/td>24 \/ 25 \/ 48 \/ 50<\/td>16 \/ 24<\/td><\/tr>
Max clip length<\/td>~12s (quality); 20s at 540p<\/td>~10s<\/td><\/tr>
Native audio<\/td>\u2705 Yes (unified pipeline)<\/td>\u274c No<\/td><\/tr>
VRAM minimum<\/td>8GB (community fork); 32GB official desktop<\/td>24GB (14B); 8GB (1.3B)<\/td><\/tr>
Open weights<\/td>\u2705 Apache 2.0<\/td>\u2705 Apache 2.0<\/td><\/tr>
Speed vs WAN 2.2<\/td>18\u201319x faster (official claim, unverified by independent testing)<\/td>Baseline<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Important context on WANversions:<\/strong> WAN 2.2 is the latest version with publicly downloadable model weights as of March 2026. Alibaba has since released WAN 2.5-Preview<\/a> and WAN 2.6, but neither version published model weights through the official open-source channels \u2014 so for true self-hosted, local deployment, WAN 2.2 is still the reference. If you want 2.6’s features (multi-shot, lip-sync), you’re going through a cloud API, which is a different workflow entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Quality Comparison<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Motion Realism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This is where WAN 2.2 genuinely earns its reputation. I prompted both models with “a person walking through a crowded Tokyo street at night, camera following from behind.” WAN 2.2’s result had that slight, almost physical weight to it \u2014 the coat movement, the subtle crowd drift. It felt observed<\/em>, not generated, as VideoWeb KI<\/a> shows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LTX 2.3 wasn’t bad. But the motion had a smoother, slightly more “animated” quality. Not uncanny \u2014 just different. WAN’s motion stability has been refined across versions to behave more intelligently and feel more physically plausible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If your content lives or dies on organic human motion \u2014 testimonial videos, lifestyle clips, anything where “it has to look real” \u2014 WAN 2.2 is still ahead<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Face and Object Consistency<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Closer call here. LTX 2.3’s new VAE architecture visibly improved texture and facial sharpness. The update introduces a new VAE architecture for sharper fine details, textures, and facial features, alongside better prompt understanding for more accurate scene composition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WAN 2.2’s consistency is solid for short clips<\/a>, but I noticed some drift on face identity past the 6-second mark. LTX held steadier on longer outputs. Round goes to LTX 2.3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prompt Adherence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

LTX 2.3 won this one. The model’s 4x larger text connector means complex prompts \u2014 multiple subjects, spatial relationships, stylistic instructions \u2014 now resolve more accurately. I tested a multi-subject prompt (“a dog and a child running toward the camera, golden hour, shallow depth of field”) and LTX 2.3 nailed it on the second try. WAN 2.2 dropped one subject entirely on three consecutive attempts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Speed and VRAM<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Here’s where things get interesting \u2014 and where I need to be honest about the numbers. What I can say from my own session: LTX 2.3 felt noticeably faster for iteration. A 5-second clip at 720p that took me roughly 4\u20135 minutes on WAN 2.2 was done in under a minute on LTX 2.3. Whether that’s 18x or 8x, I couldn’t tell you \u2014 but the speed difference is real and it matters when you’re running 20 test generations to find the one keeper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On VRAM: LTX 2.3 (22B parameters) requires at least 32GB VRAM as a baseline for the official desktop app, but with FP8 or GGUF quantization it can run on smaller cards. The community has already pushed it down to 8GB. WAN 2.2’s 1.3B model fits on a consumer RTX 4090 (24GB) or RTX 5090 (32GB), while the 14B model produces better motion quality but needs more headroom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Audio Capability<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

LTX 2.3 wins, no contest. It has native audio generation built into the same pass as the video \u2014 speech, ambient sound, SFX. The synchronized audio is good for ambient sounds, environmental effects, and general soundscapes, though it’s not yet competitive with dedicated music generation or voice synthesis tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WAN 2.2 has no native audio. You add sound to your posts, every time. For a lot of workflows, that’s totally fine. But if you’re building short-form social clips or product videos where sound-to-motion sync matters, LTX 2.3 saves a step.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ComfyUI Setup Effort<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Both models work in ComfyUI, but WAN 2.2 has had longer to mature there. The node ecosystem is more documented, the community workflows are more tested, and there are fewer surprises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LTX 2.3 is newer, so the custom nodes are still catching up. NVIDIA published an official ComfyUI guide specifically for LTX 2.3 which is worth bookmarking \u2014 it covers quantization, frame count rules (the Nx8+1 thing will bite you if you skip it), and CFG settings. If you’re starting fresh with ComfyUI, both have learning curves. If you already have a WAN 2.2 setup, upgrading weights to 2.2 from 2.1 requires no infrastructure changes. For existing setups, the upgrade is a weight swap with no infrastructure changes required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Best Use Cases: When to Pick LTX 2.3<\/h2>\n\n\n\n