Swipe for more top models
Compare
Veo 3.1 vs Grok 2025
Veo 3.1 edges out Grok 2025 overall (Veo 3.1 56.0 vs Grok 2025 54.0.) Veo 3.1 looks stronger on Humans, Objects and Animals, Physics, Text. The main tradeoffs are in Animation, Aesthetics, where Grok 2025 tends to score better.
Veo 3.1Google | Grok 2025xai |
|---|---|
Good for
| Good for
|
Bad for
| Bad for
|
Modalities
| Capability | Veo 3.1 | Grok 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Text input | ||
| Image input | ||
| Video input | ||
| Audio input | — | — |
| Image output | ||
| Audio output | — | — |
Providers
Provider
Google
google-veo
Google is the platform that serves Veo 3.1 requests, pricing, and availability.
Provider
xai
xAI
xai is the platform that serves Grok 2025 requests, pricing, and availability.
Physics
How well the model simulates real-world physics: gravity, momentum, collisions, and natural movement.
Veo 3.1 leads on physics (+10.0), with a measurable advantage over Grok 2025. The clearest separation is on Physics (+10.0). Across the other sub-metrics in this group, the gap is smaller but generally consistent with the overall direction. If physics is a priority for your prompts, Veo 3.1 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Grok 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Physics | 55.9 | 45.9 |
Prompt and Logic
Measures how accurately the model follows prompts and maintains logical consistency throughout the video.
Veo 3.1 and Grok 2025 are effectively tied on prompt and logic, with small tradeoffs across the metrics. The biggest separation is on Scene Consistency (16.3), but it's not decisive overall. In practice, you should decide based on the specific sub-metric you care about most, since neither model consistently dominates this slice of the rubric.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Grok 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt Adherence | 67.0 | 54.5 |
| Logic Consistency | 47.2 | 43.3 |
| Scene Consistency | 50.6 | 66.9 |
Aesthetics
Visual quality including cinematography, artistic taste, and overall production value.
Grok 2025 leads on aesthetics (+2.7), with a measurable advantage over Veo 3.1. The clearest separation is on Cinematography (+5.4). Across the other sub-metrics in this group, the gap is smaller but generally consistent with the overall direction. If aesthetics is a priority for your prompts, Grok 2025 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Grok 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Cinematography | 47.3 | 52.7 |
| Taste | — | — |
| Quality | 0.6 | 0.6 |
Animation
Performance on animated content styles including 2D, 3D, and anime-style animation.
Grok 2025 leads on animation (+10.4), with a measurable advantage over Veo 3.1. The clearest separation is on 2D Animation (+26.5). Across the other sub-metrics in this group, the gap is smaller but generally consistent with the overall direction. If animation is a priority for your prompts, Grok 2025 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Grok 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| 2D Animation | 46.0 | 72.5 |
| 3D Animation | 54.0 | 67.7 |
| Anime Animation | 48.3 | 39.5 |
Humans
Accuracy of human rendering including body proportions, hand details, and realistic actor performances.
Veo 3.1 leads on humans (+15.3), with a measurable advantage over Grok 2025. The clearest separation is on Hands (+36.6). Across the other sub-metrics in this group, the gap is smaller but generally consistent with the overall direction. If humans is a priority for your prompts, Veo 3.1 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Grok 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Human | 61.9 | 57.9 |
| Hands | 76.3 | 39.7 |
| Actor Performance | 40.0 | 34.7 |
Objects and Animals
Quality of rendering inanimate objects and animals with accurate shapes, textures, and movements.
Veo 3.1 leads on objects and animals (+11.1), with a measurable advantage over Grok 2025. The clearest separation is on Animals (+13.5). Across the other sub-metrics in this group, the gap is smaller but generally consistent with the overall direction. If objects and animals is a priority for your prompts, Veo 3.1 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Grok 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Objects | 61.7 | 53.1 |
| Animals | 68.0 | 54.5 |
Text
Ability to render readable, accurate text and typography within generated videos.
Veo 3.1 leads on text (+2.5), with a measurable advantage over Grok 2025. The clearest separation is on Text Fidelity (+2.5). Across the other sub-metrics in this group, the gap is smaller but generally consistent with the overall direction. If text is a priority for your prompts, Veo 3.1 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Grok 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Text Fidelity | 39.5 | 37.0 |
Cost and Speed
Practical factors including pricing per video and generation latency.
Grok 2025 leads on cost and speed (+315.7), with a measurable advantage over Veo 3.1. The clearest separation is on Latency (+935.0). Across the other sub-metrics in this group, the gap is smaller but generally consistent with the overall direction. If cost and speed is a priority for your prompts, Grok 2025 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Grok 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Price / sec | $0.200 | $0.000 |
| Price / min | $12.00 | $0.00 |
| Latency | 935ms | 0ms |