AI Video Models
Compare Sora 2, Veo 3.1, and Wan 2.5. See which model fits your content, and learn the settings and prompts that work best.

Sora 2 vs Veo 3.1 vs Wan 2.5 — Quick Comparison
- Text-to-video and image-to-video
- Great for vertical short-form
- Good motion and scene consistency
- Best for teasers, story shots
- High fidelity and temporal coherence
- Polished looks, cinematic styles
- Best for ads/promos
- Fast iteration and control
- Optimized for short social clips
- Great for loops and templates
Detailed comparison
Sora 2: Flexible styling; robust physics/world simulation
Veo 3.1: Film‑grade polish; stable composition and camera
Wan 2.5: Fast iteration; native audio with controllable motion
Sora 2: Text‑to‑video, Image‑to‑video
Veo 3.1: Text‑to‑video, Image‑to‑video
Wan 2.5: Text‑to‑video (wan2.5‑t2v‑preview), Image‑to‑video (wan2.5‑i2v‑preview)
Sora 2: Native dialogue/ambience/effects in supported flows
Veo 3.1: Synchronized audio/lip‑sync where supported
Wan 2.5: Native audio tracks aligned to visuals
Sora 2: Strong multi‑shot control; consistent continuity
Veo 3.1: Excellent realism; precise framing and camera moves
Wan 2.5: High obedience to camera, motion, and timing
Sora 2: Realism → stylized; repeatable looks
Veo 3.1: Cinematic realism and polish
Wan 2.5: Realism to stylized templates; identity preserved
Sora 2: 9:16, 1:1, 16:9
Veo 3.1: 9:16, 1:1, 16:9
Wan 2.5: 9:16, 1:1, 16:9
Sora 2: Short social clips; reports of 1080p+ in some modes
Veo 3.1: Short clips; reports of 1080p+ support
Wan 2.5: Preview suggests 1080p clips; caps evolving
Sora 2: Vertical social, teasers, stylized scenes
Veo 3.1: Ads, promos, narrative beats needing polish
Wan 2.5: Rapid iteration, loops, branded templates
Best model for…
- Vertical social: Sora 2
- Polished ad: Veo 3.1
- Quick A/B tests: Wan 2.5
Prompt recipe
Subject + action + setting + camera + style + mood. Keep one action per clip.
Recommended ratios
- 9:16 for TikTok/Reels
- 1:1 for feed posts
- 16:9 for YouTube/landscape