LTX-2 vs Wan vs Kling: Which AI Video Generator Should You Use in 2025?

AI video generation has three clear leaders in 2025: Lightricks' LTX-2, Alibaba's Wan 2.2, and Kuaishou's Kling. Each has passionate users claiming theirs is best. After generating thousands of clips across all three, here's the honest comparison you need.

Quick Answer: LTX-2 excels at fast, coherent video with excellent 4K upscaling. Wan 2.2 produces the most cinematic, high-quality footage but is slower. Kling offers the best motion dynamics and creative movement. For most users, Wan 2.2 produces the best raw quality, LTX-2 is best for iteration speed and local running, and Kling wins for dramatic motion sequences.

Quick Comparison Table

Video Quality Comparison

LTX-2 Quality

LTX-2 produces clean, coherent videos with excellent temporal consistency. Faces remain stable across frames better than competitors.

Strengths:

• Exceptional frame-to-frame coherence
• Faces stay consistent throughout clips
• Clean, artifact-free output
• Excellent text understanding
• Built-in 4K spatial upscaler

Weaknesses:

• Lower native resolution (requires upscaling)
• Motion can feel slightly "floaty"
• Less cinematic depth than Wan
• Some texture flatness at native resolution

Quality rating: 8/10

Wan 2.2 Quality

Wan 2.2 produces the most visually impressive raw footage. Cinematic lighting, rich textures, and film-like quality set it apart.

Strengths:

• Film-quality visual fidelity
• Excellent lighting and shadows
• Rich, detailed textures
• Natural skin tones
• Professional color grading appearance

Weaknesses:

• Occasional coherence issues in complex scenes
• Faces can drift slightly over longer clips
• Heavy resource requirements
• Slower generation limits iteration

Quality rating: 9.5/10

Kling Quality

Kling balances quality with excellent motion dynamics. Videos feel alive in ways other models struggle to achieve.

Strengths:

• Natural, fluid movement
• Excellent physics understanding
• Dynamic camera motion
• Impressive action sequences
• Good balance of quality and motion

Weaknesses:

• Occasional uncanny valley moments
• Some scenes feel over-processed
• Motion can be exaggerated
• Less control over subtle movements

Quality rating: 9/10

Motion and Dynamics Comparison

Motion quality matters as much as visual quality for video. Here's how each model handles movement:

LTX-2 Motion

LTX-2 prioritizes coherence over dramatic motion. Movement is smooth but conservative.

Characteristics:

• Smooth, stable motion
• Conservative movement (avoids artifacts)
• Good camera pans
• Subtle character motion
• Predictable, controllable output

Best for: Talking head videos, subtle motion, corporate content

Wan 2.2 Motion

Wan produces natural, realistic motion with cinematic sensibility.

Characteristics:

• Realistic human movement
• Natural physics simulation
• Good with fabric and hair
• Cinematic camera work
• Balanced motion intensity

Best for: Fashion, portraits, cinematic content

Kling Motion

Kling excels at dynamic, expressive movement that other models struggle with.

Characteristics:

• Dramatic, fluid motion
• Excellent action sequences
• Impressive physics (water, explosions)
• Creative camera angles
• Bold movement interpretation

Best for: Action content, creative videos, dynamic scenes

Speed and Generation Time

LTX-2 Speed

LTX-2 is designed for speed. Generation times are a fraction of competitors.

Typical times (local, RTX 4090):

• 3-second clip: ~15-30 seconds
• 5-second clip: ~30-45 seconds
• With 4K upscaling: Add ~20-30 seconds

Why it matters: Fast iteration means you can test more prompts, refine results, and produce more content.

Wan 2.2 Speed

Wan prioritizes quality over speed. Expect significant wait times.

Typical times (local, RTX 4090):

• 3-second clip: ~3-5 minutes
• 5-second clip: ~5-8 minutes
• Higher quality settings: Double times

Why it matters: Fewer iterations, but each result is more likely to be usable.

Kling Speed

Kling falls between the extremes, with API-based generation affecting total time.

Typical times (API):

• 5-second clip: ~1-2 minutes
• 10-second clip: ~2-3 minutes
• Queue times vary

Why it matters: Good balance for production workflows.

Cost Analysis

LTX-2 Costs

Local running: Free after hardware investment

• GPU requirement: 12GB+ VRAM
• Recommended: 16-24GB for best experience
• Electricity cost: Minimal per generation

API costs: Varies by provider

• Some free tiers available
• Generally $0.01-0.05 per generation

Wan 2.2 Costs

Local running: Free but hardware-intensive

• GPU requirement: 24GB+ VRAM recommended
• FP16 needs: 40GB+ for full quality
• Quantized versions: 16GB+ possible

API costs:

• Generally $0.03-0.10 per generation
• Higher quality = higher cost

Kling Costs

API primarily: Credit-based system

• Free tier: Limited generations
• Paid: ~$0.05-0.15 per generation
• Pro features: Additional cost

Local running: Possible but less common than competitors

Cost Summary

For high-volume generation, LTX-2 locally is most economical. For occasional use, all three have accessible pricing. Wan's hardware requirements make it most expensive for local use.

Feature Comparison

Text-to-Video

All three excel at text-to-video, with different strengths:

LTX-2: Best prompt adherence, follows complex prompts accurately

Wan 2.2: Best aesthetic interpretation, adds cinematic qualities to prompts

Kling: Best motion interpretation, makes prompts feel dynamic

Image-to-Video

Converting static images to video:

LTX-2: Good at maintaining source image fidelity, smooth animation

Wan 2.2: Excellent at adding cinematic motion to images, maintains quality

Kling: Best at adding dramatic movement, creative interpretation

For LTX-2 image-to-video workflows, see our LTX-2 complete guide.

Video Length

LTX-2: Can generate 12+ seconds in single generation, extendable

Wan 2.2: Limited to 5 seconds per generation, requires stitching

Kling: Up to 10 seconds, good for medium-length clips

Resolution and Upscaling

LTX-2:

• Native: 768x512 (expandable)
• Built-in 4K upscaler (excellent quality)
• Full pipeline in one tool

Wan 2.2:

• Native: 720p/1080p
• No built-in upscaler
• Requires external tools for 4K

Kling:

• Native: 1080p available
• API includes quality options
• External upscaling for 4K

Local Running Comparison

LTX-2 Local Experience

Ease of setup: Moderate

• ComfyUI nodes available
• Standalone options exist
• Good documentation

Resource usage:

• 12GB VRAM minimum
• 16GB comfortable
• 24GB for high-quality workflows

For local setup, see our LTX-2 Gradio installation guide.

Wan 2.2 Local Experience

Ease of setup: Challenging

• ComfyUI integration available
• More complex configuration
• Multiple model versions to choose

Resource usage:

• 24GB VRAM recommended
• 16GB possible with quantization
• Benefits greatly from more VRAM

For Wan workflows, see our Wan 2.2 Multi-KSampler guide.

Kling Local Experience

Ease of setup: Limited local options

• Primarily API-based
• Some community implementations
• Less developed local ecosystem

Resource usage:

• API eliminates local requirements
• Local versions when available need significant VRAM

Use Case Recommendations

Choose LTX-2 If:

1. Speed matters most. Need rapid iteration or high volume.
2. You run locally. Best local experience on consumer hardware.
3. Face consistency is critical. LTX-2's face coherence leads the pack.
4. You need integrated 4K. Built-in upscaler simplifies workflow.
5. Corporate or professional content. Clean, consistent output.

Choose Wan 2.2 If:

1. Quality is priority. Best raw visual quality available.
2. Cinematic content. Film-quality lighting and aesthetics.
3. Fashion or beauty. Excellent skin tones and textures.
4. You have powerful hardware. 24GB+ VRAM for best experience.
5. Final delivery content. When each clip must be exceptional.

Choose Kling If:

1. Motion dynamics matter. Best at dramatic, fluid movement.
2. Action sequences. Excels at dynamic content.
3. Creative projects. Bold interpretation of prompts.
4. API-first workflow. Easy integration, no local setup.
5. Physics-heavy scenes. Water, fabric, explosions.

Combined Workflow Strategies

Smart creators use multiple models:

Quality-First Pipeline

1. Generate with Wan 2.2 for maximum quality
2. Quick iterations with LTX-2 to test prompts first
3. Final render with Wan once prompt is perfected

Speed-First Pipeline

1. Primary generation with LTX-2 for volume
2. LTX-2 4K upscaler for resolution
3. Kling for action sequences when dynamics needed

Balanced Pipeline

1. LTX-2 for most content (speed + quality balance)
2. Wan 2.2 for hero shots (maximum impact)
3. Kling for dynamic moments (motion excellence)

Prompt Comparison

Same prompt, different interpretations:

Prompt: "A woman walking through a sunlit forest, golden hour, cinematic"

LTX-2: Clean execution, smooth walk cycle, accurate lighting. Safe but effective.

Wan 2.2: Gorgeous cinematic quality, beautiful light rays, professional color grading. Stunning but slower.

Kling: Dynamic walking motion, camera follows naturally, slightly more artistic interpretation. Impressive movement.

All produce usable results. Choice depends on priorities.

Technical Specifications

LTX-2 Technical Details

• Architecture: Latent diffusion, transformer-based
• Training: Large-scale video data
• Outputs: Variable fps, adjustable steps
• Inference: Optimized for speed
• Extensions: 4K upscaler, audio generation coming

Wan 2.2 Technical Details

• Architecture: Diffusion transformer
• Training: High-quality video corpus
• Outputs: Multiple quality presets
• Inference: Quality-focused, slower
• Extensions: Multiple model variants (T2V, I2V)

Kling Technical Details

• Architecture: Proprietary diffusion model
• Training: Kuaishou's video data
• Outputs: Up to 10 seconds
• Inference: Balanced speed/quality
• Extensions: API features, effects

Frequently Asked Questions

Which produces the best quality?

Wan 2.2 for raw visual quality. Kling close second. LTX-2 excellent but slightly behind.

Which is fastest?

LTX-2 significantly. Often 5-10x faster than Wan 2.2.

Can I run all three locally?

LTX-2 and Wan yes. Kling is primarily API-based.

Which is best for faces?

LTX-2 for consistency. Wan for beauty. Both good choices.

Which handles action best?

Kling excels at dynamic motion and action sequences.

What VRAM do I need?

LTX-2: 12GB+. Wan: 24GB+ recommended. Kling: API, so none.

Can I combine outputs from different models?

Yes, many workflows combine models for different shots.

Which is best for beginners?

LTX-2 for local, Kling API for cloud. Both have gentler learning curves.

Are they improving?

All three release regular updates. LTX-2 and Wan are open-source with community contributions.

Which has better documentation?

LTX-2 currently best documented. Wan improving rapidly.

Wrapping Up

There's no single "best" AI video generator. Your choice depends on priorities:

Choose LTX-2 for speed, local running, face consistency, and integrated 4K upscaling.

Choose Wan 2.2 for maximum visual quality, cinematic content, and professional output.

Choose Kling for motion dynamics, action sequences, and easy API access.

Most serious creators eventually use all three for different purposes. Start with whichever matches your primary need.

For hands-on experience without local setup, Apatero.com provides AI video generation capabilities. For detailed model-specific guides, explore our LTX-2 tips and tricks and Wan 2.2 workflow guides.

Model Quick Reference

Final Recommendations

For AI influencer content: LTX-2 for volume, Wan for hero shots

For short films: Wan 2.2 primary, Kling for action sequences

For social media: LTX-2 for speed and consistency

For creative projects: Kling for motion, Wan for aesthetics

For budget-conscious: LTX-2 locally

For quality-obsessed: Wan 2.2 without question

The AI video generation landscape is evolving rapidly. All three models improve with each update. Master one, then expand your toolkit as needs grow.