Swipe for more top models
Compare
Veo 3.1 Fast vs Grok Imagine 1.0
Grok Imagine 1.0 edges out Veo 3.1 Fast overall (Veo 3.1 Fast 51.0 vs Grok Imagine 1.0 58.0.) Grok Imagine is probably the best value model if you're not paying through the API. It scores quite highly in categories like prompt adherence and was one of the top animation models. Given xAI's generous tier, it holds its own with frontier model generations like Veo 3 and Kling at a fraction of the cost. It can still struggle with physics, and in rapid motion you sometimes see stuttering or inconsistent speed-ups and slow-downs. The main tradeoffs are in Physics accuracy, Rapid motion (stuttering, inconsistent speed), where Veo 3.1 Fast tends to score better.
Veo 3.1 FastGoogle | Grok Imagine 1.0xai |
|---|---|
Good for
| Good for
|
Bad for
| Bad for
|
Modalities
| Capability | Veo 3.1 Fast | Grok Imagine 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Fast requests, pricing, and availability.
Provider
xai
xAI
xai is the platform that serves Grok Imagine 1.0 requests, pricing, and availability.
Physics
How well the model simulates real-world physics: gravity, momentum, collisions, and natural movement.
Veo 3.1 Fast leads on physics (+5.4), with a measurable advantage over Grok Imagine 1.0. The clearest separation is on Physics (+5.4). 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 Fast is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Grok Imagine 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Physics | 45.7 | 40.4 |
Prompt and Logic
Measures how accurately the model follows prompts and maintains logical consistency throughout the video.
Grok Imagine 1.0 leads on prompt and logic (+17.3), with a measurable advantage over Veo 3.1 Fast. The clearest separation is on Logic Consistency (+25.1). 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, Grok Imagine 1.0 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Grok Imagine 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt Adherence | 44.0 | 66.7 |
| Logic Consistency | 41.5 | 66.7 |
| Scene Consistency | 50.7 | 54.9 |
Aesthetics
Visual quality including cinematography, artistic taste, and overall production value.
Grok Imagine 1.0 leads on aesthetics (+3.8), with a measurable advantage over Veo 3.1 Fast. The clearest separation is on Cinematography (+7.3). 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, Grok Imagine 1.0 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Grok Imagine 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Cinematography | 53.4 | 60.7 |
| Taste | — | — |
| Quality | 0.5 | 0.7 |
Animation
Performance on animated content styles including 2D, 3D, and anime-style animation.
Grok Imagine 1.0 leads on animation (+40.2), with a measurable advantage over Veo 3.1 Fast. The clearest separation is on 3D Animation (+70.0). 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, Grok Imagine 1.0 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Grok Imagine 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| 2D Animation | 27.7 | 71.7 |
| 3D Animation | 15.0 | 85.0 |
| Anime Animation | 54.3 | 61.0 |
Humans
Accuracy of human rendering including body proportions, hand details, and realistic actor performances.
Veo 3.1 Fast and Grok Imagine 1.0 are effectively tied on humans, with small tradeoffs across the metrics. The biggest separation is on Hands (17.6), 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 Fast | Grok Imagine 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Human | 55.3 | 65.6 |
| Hands | 77.3 | 59.7 |
| Actor Performance | 56.3 | 64.0 |
Objects and Animals
Quality of rendering inanimate objects and animals with accurate shapes, textures, and movements.
Veo 3.1 Fast leads on objects and animals (+2.2), with a measurable advantage over Grok Imagine 1.0. The clearest separation is on Objects (+2.9). 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 Fast is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Grok Imagine 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Objects | 57.6 | 54.7 |
| Animals | 55.1 | 53.6 |
Text
Ability to render readable, accurate text and typography within generated videos.
Grok Imagine 1.0 leads on text (+21.3), with a measurable advantage over Veo 3.1 Fast. The clearest separation is on Text Fidelity (+21.3). 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, Grok Imagine 1.0 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Grok Imagine 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Text Fidelity | 47.7 | 69.0 |
Cost and Speed
Practical factors including pricing per video and generation latency.
Grok Imagine 1.0 leads on cost and speed (+214.7), with a measurable advantage over Veo 3.1 Fast. The clearest separation is on Latency (+638.0). 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 Imagine 1.0 is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Grok Imagine 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Price / sec | $0.100 | $0.000 |
| Price / min | $6.00 | $0.00 |
| Latency | 638ms | 0ms |