Swipe for more top models
Compare
Veo 3.1 vs Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video
Veo 3.1 edges out Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video overall (Veo 3.1 56.0 vs Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video 26.0.) Veo 3.1 looks stronger on Animation, Objects and Animals, Text, Physics. The main tradeoffs are in Cost and Speed, where Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video tends to score better.
Veo 3.1Google | Pika v2.2 Text-to-VideoPika |
|---|---|
Good for
| Good for
|
Bad for
| Bad for
|
Modalities
| Capability | Veo 3.1 | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Pika
pika
Pika is the platform that serves Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video 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 (+32.2), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Physics (+32.2). 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 | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Physics | 55.9 | 23.7 |
Prompt and Logic
Measures how accurately the model follows prompts and maintains logical consistency throughout the video.
Veo 3.1 leads on prompt and logic (+23.7), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Scene Consistency (+29.4). Across the other sub-metrics in this group, the gap is smaller but generally consistent with the overall direction. If prompt and logic is a priority for your prompts, Veo 3.1 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt Adherence | 67.0 | 47.0 |
| Logic Consistency | 47.2 | 25.5 |
| Scene Consistency | 50.6 | 21.2 |
Aesthetics
Visual quality including cinematography, artistic taste, and overall production value.
Veo 3.1 leads on aesthetics (+7.9), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Cinematography (+15.3). 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, Veo 3.1 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Cinematography | 47.3 | 32.1 |
| Taste | — | — |
| Quality | 0.6 | 0.1 |
Animation
Performance on animated content styles including 2D, 3D, and anime-style animation.
Veo 3.1 leads on animation (+35.1), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on 3D Animation (+37.0). 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, Veo 3.1 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| 2D Animation | 46.0 | 12.7 |
| 3D Animation | 54.0 | 17.0 |
| Anime Animation | 48.3 | 13.3 |
Humans
Accuracy of human rendering including body proportions, hand details, and realistic actor performances.
Veo 3.1 leads on humans (+29.3), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Hands (+56.9). 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 | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Human | 61.9 | 24.3 |
| Hands | 76.3 | 19.3 |
| Actor Performance | 40.0 | 46.7 |
Objects and Animals
Quality of rendering inanimate objects and animals with accurate shapes, textures, and movements.
Veo 3.1 leads on objects and animals (+34.2), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Animals (+37.4). 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 | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Objects | 61.7 | 30.6 |
| Animals | 68.0 | 30.6 |
Text
Ability to render readable, accurate text and typography within generated videos.
Veo 3.1 leads on text (+33.5), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Text Fidelity (+33.5). 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 | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Text Fidelity | 39.5 | 6.0 |
Cost and Speed
Practical factors including pricing per video and generation latency.
Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video leads on cost and speed (+319.1), 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, Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Price / sec | $0.400 | $0.035 |
| Price / min | $24.00 | $2.10 |
| Latency | 935ms | 0ms |