Swipe for more top models
<report>
Google
62.60
Megaton Index
The 0–100 weighted total across 15 v-benchmark v2 dimensions, calculated from each published category and technical score at its locked weight.
View methodology →/ 100
Prompt Adherence20%79.45C02Scene Consistency10%80.01C03Physics20%45.29C04Human Fidelity10%65.93C052D Animation Craft & Artistry7.5%47.50C063D Animation Craft & Artistry7.5%49.00C07Cinematography Craft & Artistry2.5%62.86C08Taste & Art Direction6.5%51.94C09Animal & Creature Fidelity1.5%67.14C10Object & Product Fidelity1.5%95.56C11Causal & Semantic Coherence7.5%65.45C12Text Fidelity1.5%41.67C13Character Performance & Acting1.5%62.00C15Quality + Reliability2%82.74Get the complete Veo 3.1 category evidence, comparison videos, and version analysis.
If you work at Google and want full access to the evaluation, please reach out directly to receive a full complimentary report.This Video
95.5This Video · Assessment
This video fulfills its explicit, observable instructions with near-complete consistency.
This Category
79.560 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Most prompt requirements are fulfilled, though complex combinations or secondary details recur as limitations.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
40.0This Video · Assessment
This video maintains subjects, objects, spatial relationships, environment, and lighting over time only partly reliably, with frequent important failures.
This Category
80.060 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Temporal and spatial continuity is highly reliable, with only isolated drift or regeneration.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
40.0This Video · Assessment
The event occurs, but its physical behavior is clearly implausible.
This Category
45.317 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Physics is only partly reliable; implausible trajectories, contacts, or material behavior recur frequently.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
90.0This Video · Assessment
Highly convincing, with one very small localized defect.
This Category
65.927 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
People remain believable in most cases, though uncanny or anatomical defects recur under inspection.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
30.0This Video · Assessment
Severe morphing, timing, drawing, or medium-authenticity failures.
This Category
47.512 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Coherent 2D craft appears only in some cases; line, timing, pose, or medium-authenticity failures recur frequently.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
30.0This Video · Assessment
Severe deformation, articulation, contact, rendering, or medium-coherence failures.
This Category
49.05 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Convincing 3D craft appears only in some cases; articulation, contact, rendering, or staging failures recur frequently.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
60.0This Video · Assessment
Coherent and competent but synthetic, mechanical, or visually underdeveloped.
This Category
62.97 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Cinematography is generally coherent and capable, but mechanical or underdeveloped visual choices recur.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
60.0This Video · Assessment
Competent but visibly reliant on familiar AI aesthetics or underdeveloped art direction.
This Category
51.960 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Successful choices are mixed with repeated inconsistency or familiar AI aesthetics.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
60.0This Video · Assessment
Coherent but noticeably synthetic, anatomically strained, or behaviorally unnatural.
This Category
67.17 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Animals and creatures remain believable in most cases, though synthetic anatomy, motion, or behavior recurs.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
100.0This Video · Assessment
This video preserves the requested objects’ identity, structure, materials, details, motion, and interactions with near-complete consistency.
This Category
95.68 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Requested objects preserve identity, structure, materials, details, motion, and interactions with near-complete consistency.
This Video
80.0This Video · Assessment
Clear overall, with a few non-disruptive logical irregularities.
This Category
65.511 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Central events are generally understandable, but strained or unexplained actions and relationships recur.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
61.1This Video · Assessment
This video preserves requested text content, typography, placement, attachment, legibility, and temporal stability in a generally coherent way, though visible failures recur.
This Category
41.77 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Only some text is rendered reliably; spelling, legibility, placement, or temporal failures are frequent.
Models that scored similarly on this category
This Video
60.0This Video · Assessment
Readable but synthetic, generalized, or mechanically delivered.
This Category
62.021 videos were rated for this category
This Category · Assessment
Acting is generally believable, but synthetic timing, expression, attention, or specificity recurs.
Models that scored similarly on this category
megaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aimegaton.aiMeasuring video model quality and performance
Scores are from the active Megaton v-benchmark v2.0 publication. See how our scores are calculated in our Methodology.
The Megaton Index is the published 0–100 weighted summary for v-benchmark v2. This public report shows the model's Index and category scores; the full calibration evidence, decision records, and scoring implementation are reserved for the full report.
Read the full methodology →
