Swipe for more top models
Compare
Veo 3.1 Fast vs Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video
Veo 3.1 Fast edges out Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video overall (Veo 3.1 Fast 51.0 vs Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video 26.0.) Veo 3.1 Fast looks stronger on Text, Humans, Objects and Animals, Physics. The main tradeoffs are in Cost and Speed, where Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video tends to score better.
Veo 3.1 FastGoogle | Pika v2.2 Text-to-VideoPika |
|---|---|
Good for
| Good for
|
Bad for
| Bad for
|
Modalities
| Capability | Veo 3.1 Fast | 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 Fast 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 Fast leads on physics (+22.1), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Physics (+22.1). 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 Fast is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Physics | 45.7 | 23.7 |
Prompt and Logic
Measures how accurately the model follows prompts and maintains logical consistency throughout the video.
Veo 3.1 Fast leads on prompt and logic (+14.2), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Scene Consistency (+29.5). 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 Fast is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt Adherence | 44.0 | 47.0 |
| Logic Consistency | 41.5 | 25.5 |
| Scene Consistency | 50.7 | 21.2 |
Aesthetics
Visual quality including cinematography, artistic taste, and overall production value.
Veo 3.1 Fast leads on aesthetics (+10.8), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Cinematography (+21.3). 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 Fast is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Cinematography | 53.4 | 32.1 |
| Taste | — | — |
| Quality | 0.5 | 0.1 |
Animation
Performance on animated content styles including 2D, 3D, and anime-style animation.
Veo 3.1 Fast leads on animation (+18.0), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Anime Animation (+41.0). 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 Fast is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| 2D Animation | 27.7 | 12.7 |
| 3D Animation | 15.0 | 17.0 |
| Anime Animation | 54.3 | 13.3 |
Humans
Accuracy of human rendering including body proportions, hand details, and realistic actor performances.
Veo 3.1 Fast leads on humans (+32.9), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Hands (+57.9). 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 Fast is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Human | 55.3 | 24.3 |
| Hands | 77.3 | 19.3 |
| Actor Performance | 56.3 | 46.7 |
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 (+25.8), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Objects (+27.0). 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 | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Objects | 57.6 | 30.6 |
| Animals | 55.1 | 30.6 |
Text
Ability to render readable, accurate text and typography within generated videos.
Veo 3.1 Fast leads on text (+41.7), with a measurable advantage over Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video. The clearest separation is on Text Fidelity (+41.7). 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 Fast is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Text Fidelity | 47.7 | 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 (+214.0), 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, Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video is the safer pick here.
| Metric | Veo 3.1 Fast | Pika v2.2 Text-to-Video |
|---|---|---|
| Price / sec | $0.100 | $0.035 |
| Price / min | $6.00 | $2.10 |
| Latency | 638ms | 0ms |