Veo 3.1 vs Wan
A practical comparison of two video models: what each does best, what it costs, and how they differ on the same prompts.
Quick verdict
Google’s flagship video model with native, synchronized audio.
Choose Veo 3.1 for
- Talking characters and scenes with sound
- Cinematic B-roll and ads
- Short-form social video
Alibaba
Alibaba’s open-weight video model you can run yourself.
Choose Wan for
- Self-hosted video generation
Specs side by side
| Spec | Veo 3.1 | Wan |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Alibaba | |
| Type | video | video |
| Where to use it | AiLoft video studio (Fast and Quality), Gemini app, Flow, Gemini API | Open weights (ComfyUI, Diffusers); Alibaba Cloud API |
| Price | 200–1000 credits / clip | Free to run locally (Apache 2.0); API priced per second. |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| Resolutions | 720p | — |
| Aspect ratios | 16:9 · 9:16 | — |
| Reference / start images | Yes | — |
| Clip length | 8s | — |
| Native audio | Yes | — |
Same prompt, side by side
Wan isn’t on AiLoft, but you can run these prompts on Veo 3.1 and compare with your own Wan results.
Camera motion
What it testsSmooth dolly movement and stable geometry.
Slow dolly-in through a rainy neon-lit Tokyo alley at night, reflections on wet pavement, steam rising from a ramen stall, cinematic, shallow depth of field
Physics & action
What it testsWater, cloth and body motion that obey physics.
A surfer carving a turn on a large turquoise wave, spray flying off the board, slow motion, golden hour backlight, tracking shot from the water
Character & dialogue
What it testsFacial consistency and lip sync on models with audio.
Close-up of a friendly barista in a sunlit café looking at the camera and saying "Your oat latte is ready!", ambient café chatter, espresso machine hiss
Strengths and limitations
Veo 3.1
- Native audio: dialogue, ambience and SFX in one pass
- Cinematic camera moves and realistic physics
- Image-to-video from a start frame
- Fixed 8-second clip length
- Landscape and portrait only (no 1:1)
- Quality tier is the most expensive video option
Wan
- Open weights under Apache 2.0
- Local ComfyUI workflows
- Large variants need lots of VRAM
- Slower than hosted models on consumer GPUs
FAQ
Is Veo 3.1 better than Wan?
Neither wins everywhere. Veo 3.1’s standout strength: native audio: dialogue, ambience and sfx in one pass. Wan’s standout strength: open weights under apache 2.0. The quickest way to decide is to run your own prompt on both.
Which is cheaper, Veo 3.1 or Wan?
Veo 3.1: 200–1000 credits / clip Wan: Free to run locally (Apache 2.0); API priced per second.
Can I use Veo 3.1 and Wan in one place?
Veo 3.1 is available on AiLoft, where you can compare it against other models in one click. Wan has to be used through: Open weights (ComfyUI, Diffusers); Alibaba Cloud API.
Are Veo 3.1 and Wan open source?
Veo 3.1 is closed. Wan has open-weight variants.
Stop guessing — compare on your own prompt
Pick up to 4 image models (or 3 video models), write one prompt, and see every result side by side.