Compare engines

Luma Ray 3.2 vs Google Veo 3.1

This page compares Luma Ray 3.2 vs Google Veo 3.1 on MaxVideoAI using the same prompts, side-by-side renders, key specs, and a scorecard across 11 criteria. Use it to shortlist the best fit — then open each engine profile for full specs and prompt examples.

7.7/10Score

Luma Ray 3.2

Strengths: Pricing, Controllability

7.9/10Score

Google Veo 3.1

Strengths: Ads and B-roll

Scorecard (Side-by-Side)

Scores reflect quality and control on MaxVideoAI across 11 criteria.

7.9

Prompt Adherence

iprompt alignment / instruction following
8.4
8.0

Visual Quality

iimage quality / aesthetic quality / realism / artifacts / flicker
8.1
7.9

Motion Realism

imotion smoothness / physics plausibility
7.9
7.4

Temporal Consistency

itemporal coherence / identity consistency
7.4
7.6

Human Fidelity

ifaces / hands / body realism
8.2
6.4

Text & UI Legibility

itext rendering / readability
7.2
N/A

Audio & Lip Sync

ilip sync quality / dialogue sync
9.0
7.2

Multi-Shot Sequencing

ishot-to-shot continuity / multi-shot
7.8
8.4

Controllability

icamera control / constraint following
8.3
6.6

Speed & Stability

ilatency / success rate
7.4
7.0

Pricing

iprice per second / credits / estimated cost
3.6

Winner summary

Leads on scorecard

Google Veo 3.1 leads on 6/10 (best: Speed & Stability, Text & UI Legibility).

Cheaper on MaxVideoAI

Cheaper: Luma Ray 3.2 (540p: $0.13/s vs 720p: $0.52/s).

Max resolution

Max resolution: Google Veo 3.1 (1080p vs 4K).

Key Specs (Side-by-Side)

Compare key AI video model specs side-by-side (pricing, inputs, resolution, duration, aspect ratios, audio, and core controls). This is a high-level snapshot — see the full engine profile for the complete feature set and prompt examples.

Luma Ray 3.2Key specGoogle Veo 3.1
540p: $0.13/s
1080p: $0.52/s
Pricing (MaxVideoAI)
720p: $0.52/s
4K: $0.78/s
Text-to-Video
Image-to-Video
Video-to-Video
First/Last frame
Reference image / style reference
Image-to-Video: 1 start image; Reference-to-Video: 1-3 stills
Reference video
1080p
Max resolution
4K
10s generation; source clips up to 30s for Modify/Reframe intake
Max duration
8s
1007s avg
Avg render time
60s avg
9:16 / 3:4 / 1:1 / 4:3 / 16:9 / 21:9
Aspect ratios
16:9 / 9:16
24 fps
FPS options
24 fps
MP4
Output format
MP4
Audio output
Native audio generation
Lip sync
Prompt, source-video preservation, guide frames and Modify keyframes
Camera / motion controls
Prompt-based only
No (MaxVideoAI)
Watermark
No (MaxVideoAI)

Showdown (same prompt)

Side-by-side renders from the same prompt on MaxVideoAI. Prompts are identical; outputs may vary by model.

Showing up to 3 prompt pairs for clarity.

Fast Motion + Physics (16:9)

What it tests: Motion Realism + Temporal Consistency + Visual Quality

Prompt
Source prompt

Wide 16:9 cinematic action shot, a runner sprints through a rainy city street at night, water splashes realistically with each step, reflections on wet asphalt, handheld tracking camera following from the side. Dynamic motion with believable inertia and physics, no rubbery limbs, no wobbling background, stable scene geometry, minimal temporal flicker, sharp details despite fast movement, realistic motion blur.

Luma Ray 3.2

Placeholder example — prompt render coming soon

Google Veo 3.1

Try this prompt:Generate with Ray 3.2Generate with Veo 3.1Opens the generator pre-filled.

UGC Talking Head + Lip Sync (9:16)

What it tests: Human Fidelity + Audio/Lip Sync + Prompt Adherence

Prompt
Source prompt

Vertical 9:16 TikTok-style UGC selfie video, handheld smartphone feel, natural indoor daylight near a window. A friendly creator speaks directly to camera with natural blinking, subtle head nods, and a warm smile. Add small human imperfections: a tiny hesitation, a soft breath, a quick smile mid-sentence, and a micro-pause before the last line. Realistic skin texture, stable identity, no face warping, minimal flicker, clean audio with natural room tone. No subtitles. No on-screen text. No logos. No watermarks. The creator says (exactly, with the same pacing and hesitations): “Okay, so… um… quick thing. If you’re feeling stuck, just do the tiniest first step… like, set a two-minute timer and start. (smiles) That’s it. You’ll be surprised how fast it gets easier.”

Luma Ray 3.2

Placeholder example — prompt render coming soon

Google Veo 3.1

Try this prompt:Generate with Ray 3.2Generate with Veo 3.1Opens the generator pre-filled.

Hands + Product Demo + On-screen Text

What it tests: Hands/Fingers + Text & UI Legibility + Prompt Adherence

Prompt
Source prompt

Wide 16:9 full-body unboxing video in a clean studio/kitchen setting. A person is fully visible (head-to-toe or at least head-to-knees) standing behind a minimalist tabletop. They unbox a small generic gadget from a plain matte cardboard box: peel the seal, open the lid, remove the inner tray, take out the device and accessories, and lay everything neatly on the table. The person occasionally lifts the item toward the camera for a closer look, then places it back down. Realism requirements: natural body proportions, stable identity, realistic skin and clothing fabric, no face warping, no unnatural limb bending. Hands must be highly realistic: correct finger count, natural grip, believable pressure/contact with the box and device, consistent shadows, no extra fingers, no “floating” objects. Keep object geometry stable, no wobbling background, minimal temporal flicker. Camera: single continuous shot, tripod-stable, slight cinematic push-in (very slow), eye-level or slightly above table height. Natural soft daylight, clean shadows, realistic materials and textures. No logos, no brand names, no watermarks. No subtitles. Optional on-screen title at the top (perfectly readable and stable, no jitter): "UNBOXING — FIRST LOOK"

Luma Ray 3.2

Placeholder example — prompt render coming soon

Google Veo 3.1

Try this prompt:Generate with Ray 3.2Generate with Veo 3.1Opens the generator pre-filled.

This side-by-side AI video comparison uses identical prompts to highlight differences in motion, realism, human fidelity, and text legibility. For full specs, controls, and more prompt examples, open each engine profile.

FAQ

Quick answers about Luma Ray 3.2 vs Google Veo 3.1 on MaxVideoAI (pricing, modes, specs, and why results differ).

What are Luma Ray 3.2 and Google Veo 3.1?

Luma Ray 3.2 and Google Veo 3.1 are AI video generation engines available on MaxVideoAI. This page compares them side-by-side using the same prompts, key specs, and performance data shown above.

Which is better: Luma Ray 3.2 or Google Veo 3.1?

It depends on your workflow. Use the scorecard and the “same prompt” showdowns to compare prompt adherence, motion realism, human fidelity, and text legibility — then open each engine profile for full details.

Which is cheaper on MaxVideoAI?

Pricing varies by engine and settings (duration, resolution, audio). Currently, Luma Ray 3.2 starts at 540p: $0.13/s and Google Veo 3.1 starts at 720p: $0.52/s (see “Pricing (MaxVideoAI)” for details).

What are the biggest differences between Luma Ray 3.2 and Google Veo 3.1?
  • Lip sync: Luma Ray 3.2 is not supported vs Google Veo 3.1 is supported.
  • Max resolution: Luma Ray 3.2 is 1080p vs Google Veo 3.1 is 4K.
Do they support Text-to-Video / Image-to-Video / Video-to-Video?

On MaxVideoAI: Text-to-Video is Supported vs Supported; Image-to-Video is Supported vs Supported; Video-to-Video is Supported (Ray 3.2 Modify and Reframe source-video routes) vs Supported (Extend from one source video). Some fields may still be under validation.

Do they support First/Last frame or references?

First/Last frame is Supported (I2V end frame plus Modify guide/keyframes up to 64 anchors) vs Supported. Reference image/style is Supported through guide frames and indexed Modify keyframes vs Image-to-Video: 1 start image; Reference-to-Video: 1-3 stills; Reference video is Supported for Modify and Reframe source-video workflows vs Supported (one source clip for Extend).

What are the max resolution, duration, and aspect ratios?

Max output is 1080p / 10s generation; source clips up to 30s for Modify/Reframe intake for Luma Ray 3.2 and 4K / 8s for Google Veo 3.1. Supported aspect ratios include 9:16 / 3:4 / 1:1 / 4:3 / 16:9 / 21:9 vs 16:9 / 9:16 (see Key Specs for the full list).

Do they support audio generation and lip sync?

Audio output is Not supported vs Supported. Native audio generation is Not supported vs Supported, and lip sync is Not supported vs Supported (some fields may still be under validation).

Does MaxVideoAI add a watermark?

No. MaxVideoAI exports are watermark-free (“Watermark: No (MaxVideoAI)”).

Why do results look different with the same prompt?

Even with identical prompts, models interpret instructions differently and use different training data and generation strategies. That’s why the Showdown section exists: same prompt, side-by-side outputs.

Where can I find full specs, controls, and more prompt examples?

Open the full engine profiles for complete specs, controls, and more prompts: /models/luma-ray-3-2 and /models/veo-3-1. You can also browse more outputs in the engine galleries.