Swipe for more top models
Compare
Veo 3.1 vs Vidu Q2
Veo 3.1 edges out Vidu Q2 overall (Veo 3.1 56.0 vs Vidu Q2 45.0.) Veo 3.1 looks stronger on Objects and Animals, Prompt and Logic, Physics, Text. The main tradeoffs are in Animation, where Vidu Q2 tends to score better.
Veo 3.1Google | Vidu Q2Vidu |
|---|---|
Good for
| Good for
|
Bad for
| Bad for
|
Modalities
| Capability | Veo 3.1 | Vidu Q2 |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Vidu
vidu
Vidu is the platform that serves Vidu Q2 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 (+12.1), with a measurable advantage over Vidu Q2. The clearest separation is on Physics (+12.1). 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 | Vidu Q2 |
|---|---|---|
| Physics | 55.9 | 43.8 |
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 (+12.2), with a measurable advantage over Vidu Q2. The clearest separation is on Prompt Adherence (+21.3). 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 | Vidu Q2 |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt Adherence | 67.0 | 45.8 |
| Logic Consistency | 47.2 | 37.2 |
| Scene Consistency | 50.6 | 45.2 |
Aesthetics
Visual quality including cinematography, artistic taste, and overall production value.
Veo 3.1 and Vidu Q2 are effectively tied on aesthetics, with small tradeoffs across the metrics. The biggest separation is on Cinematography (0.7), 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 | Vidu Q2 |
|---|---|---|
| Cinematography | 47.3 | 46.6 |
| Taste | — | — |
| Quality | 0.6 | 0.4 |
Animation
Performance on animated content styles including 2D, 3D, and anime-style animation.
Vidu Q2 leads on animation (+7.1), with a measurable advantage over Veo 3.1. The clearest separation is on 3D Animation (+15.0). 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, Vidu Q2 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Vidu Q2 |
|---|---|---|
| 2D Animation | 46.0 | 38.0 |
| 3D Animation | 54.0 | 69.0 |
| Anime Animation | 48.3 | 62.7 |
Humans
Accuracy of human rendering including body proportions, hand details, and realistic actor performances.
Veo 3.1 leads on humans (+4.8), with a measurable advantage over Vidu Q2. The clearest separation is on Hands (+17.3). 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 | Vidu Q2 |
|---|---|---|
| Human | 61.9 | 49.7 |
| Hands | 76.3 | 59.0 |
| Actor Performance | 40.0 | 55.0 |
Objects and Animals
Quality of rendering inanimate objects and animals with accurate shapes, textures, and movements.
Veo 3.1 leads on objects and animals (+28.6), with a measurable advantage over Vidu Q2. The clearest separation is on Animals (+29.9). 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 | Vidu Q2 |
|---|---|---|
| Objects | 61.7 | 34.4 |
| Animals | 68.0 | 38.1 |
Text
Ability to render readable, accurate text and typography within generated videos.
Veo 3.1 leads on text (+7.5), with a measurable advantage over Vidu Q2. The clearest separation is on Text Fidelity (+7.5). 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 | Vidu Q2 |
|---|---|---|
| Text Fidelity | 39.5 | 32.0 |
Cost and Speed
Practical factors including pricing per video and generation latency.
Vidu Q2 leads on cost and speed (+308.4), 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, Vidu Q2 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 | Vidu Q2 |
|---|---|---|
| Price / sec | $0.200 | $0.360 |
| Price / min | $12.00 | $21.60 |
| Latency | 935ms | 0ms |