Luma Ray 3.2
7.7/10Editorial score
Higher-rated areas: Creative control, Visual quality
Compare engines
Luma Ray 3.2 vs Google Veo 3.1 Fast
See what each model can create. Compare quality, controls and price.
How to choose
Use Luma Ray 3.2 when the creative problem is source-video control: Modify Video, Reframe, guide frames, cinematic motion preservation, and 1080p visual iteration without native audio. Use Veo 3.1 Fast when the brief needs a faster Veo-style draft, native audio options, higher delivery headroom, and premium short-form polish before moving into final production. This comparison is most useful for teams deciding whether the next pass should edit or reframe existing motion, or generate a more polished audio-ready Veo draft. Ray 3.2 Extend adds five new seconds forward or backward only from an eligible owned direct Luma generation. Uploaded or copied public videos do not supply that lineage. Creation keyframes and Modify guide frames remain separate and cannot be added to Extend; automatic assembly with the original is not promised.
Google Veo 3.1 Fast
7.6/10Editorial score
Higher-rated areas: Speed & reliability, Audio & lip sync
See the models in action
Independent examples, with different prompts and settings.
Luma Ray 3.2
Explore examples
Google Veo 3.1 Fast
Explore examples
Compare what matters
These are MaxVideoAI editorial assessments, not same-prompt test results. The dates below record score updates. MaxVideoAI sells access to the models it covers.
Score records last updated: Luma Ray 3.2 · Google Veo 3.1 Fast
How we benchmark| Criterion · 0–10 | Luma Ray 3.2 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Follows your promptHow closely the result follows the prompt. | Luma Ray 3.27.9/10 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast8.1/10 |
| Visual qualityDetail, lighting and visible artifacts. | Luma Ray 3.28.0/10 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast7.1/10 |
| Natural movementHow naturally subjects and cameras move. | Luma Ray 3.27.9/10 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast7.7/10 |
| Human appearanceFaces, hands and body movement. | Luma Ray 3.27.6/10 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast7.6/10 |
| Audio & lip syncSpeech, sound and mouth movement in sync. | Luma Ray 3.2N/A | Google Veo 3.1 Fast8.4/10 |
| Creative controlHow much direction the model follows. | Luma Ray 3.28.4/10 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast7.9/10 |
6 of 10 criteria shown10 of 10 criteria shownCompare the 4 other criteriaHide additional criteria
| Criterion · 0–10 | Luma Ray 3.2 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Consistency over timeWhether details hold together over time. | Luma Ray 3.27.4/10 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast7.0/10 |
| Readable textHow readable generated text and interfaces are. | Luma Ray 3.26.4/10 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast6.5/10 |
| Multi-shot continuityContinuity between different shots. | Luma Ray 3.27.2/10 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast7.5/10 |
| Speed & reliabilityGeneration speed and reliability. | Luma Ray 3.26.6/10 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast9.1/10 |
Generate with
Luma Ray 3.2
Generate with
Google Veo 3.1 Fast
What will your video cost?
Compare prices by resolution. The final quote depends on your duration, mode and settings.
Luma Ray 3.2
Text to video5 s16:9audio off
- 540p
- $0.65per video · $0.13/s
- 720p
- $1.30per video · $0.26/s
- 1080p
- $2.60per video · $0.52/s
Google Veo 3.1 Fast
Text to video4 s16:9audio on
- 720p
- $0.52per video · $0.13/s
- 1080p
- $0.63per video · $0.1575/s
- 4K
- $1.56per video · $0.39/s
Your settings. Your quote. Before you generate.
USD estimate · snapshot generated
Formats, inputs and controls
Check duration, resolution, supported inputs and controls. Open each model’s guide for its full feature set.
New clip · maximum
- Luma Ray 3.2
- 10 s
- Google Veo 3.1 Fast
- 8 s
Max resolution
- Luma Ray 3.2
- 1080p
- Google Veo 3.1 Fast
- 4K
Audio output
- Luma Ray 3.2
- Not supported
- Google Veo 3.1 Fast
- Supported
Compare all 18 specificationsClose the full specification tableCheck references, audio, camera controls and output formats.
| Key spec | Luma Ray 3.2 | Google Veo 3.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing (MaxVideoAI) | 540p: $0.13/s720p: $0.26/s1080p: $0.52/s | 720p: $0.13/s1080p: $0.1575/s4K: $0.39/s |
| Text-to-Video | Supported | Supported |
| Image-to-Video | Supported | Supported |
| Video-to-Video | Supported (Modify / Reframe / owned-generation Extend) | Supported (extend / retake workflows) |
| First/Last frame | Supported (I2V end frame plus Modify guide/keyframes up to 64 anchors) | Supported |
| Reference image / style reference | Supported through guide frames and indexed Modify keyframes | Image-to-Video: 1 start image; Reference mode: 1-3 stills |
| Reference video | Supported (Modify / Reframe / owned-generation Extend) | Supported (source clip for extend / retake) |
| Max resolution | 1080p | 4K |
| New clip · maximum | 10 sText to video, Image to video: 5 / 10 s | 8 sText to video, Image to video, First / last frame: 4 / 6 / 8 sImage references: 8 s |
| Extension · added duration | 5 s | 7 s |
| Aspect ratios | 9:16 / 3:4 / 1:1 / 4:3 / 16:9 / 21:9 | 16:9 / 9:16 |
| FPS options | 24 fps | 24 fps |
| Output format | MP4 | MP4 |
| Audio output | Not supported | Supported |
| Native audio generation | Not supported | Supported |
| Lip sync | Not supported | Supported |
| Camera / motion controls | Prompt, source-video preservation, guide frames and Modify keyframes | Prompt-based only |
| Watermark | No (MaxVideoAI) | No (MaxVideoAI) |
Duration choices depend on mode and resolution; check the creation settings.
Capabilities available in MaxVideoAI. Provider sources below; their verification dates are not recorded here.
Luma Ray 3.2: maxvideoai.com · docs.agents.lumalabs.ai · fal.ai (1) · fal.ai (2)
Google Veo 3.1 Fast: maxvideoai.com · fal.ai (1) · fal.ai (2) · fal.ai (3) · fal.ai (4) · fal.ai (5)
Recommended next steps
Related comparisons
Explore a few more popular side-by-side matchups.
Luma Ray 3.2 vs Google Veo 3.1Dreamina Seedance 2.0 Mini vs Luma Ray 3.2Dreamina Seedance 2.0 Mini vs Google Veo 3.1 FastSeedance 2.0 Fast vs Google Veo 3.1 Fast
Continue this comparison in your AI assistant 4 questions to help you choose
FAQ
Short answers for choosing between Luma video-control workflows and fast Veo production drafts.
Open a question to read the answer. One answer at a time.
When should I choose Luma Ray 3.2 over Veo 3.1 Fast?
Choose Luma Ray 3.2 when source-video editing, reframe control, guide frames, and preserving or redirecting existing motion are more important than native audio.
When is Veo 3.1 Fast better?
Choose Veo 3.1 Fast when you need a faster premium visual draft, native audio options, stronger final polish, or more delivery headroom than Luma Ray 3.2 provides.
Which one is better for product or ad tests?
Luma Ray 3.2 is stronger when you already have source footage to modify or reframe. Veo 3.1 Fast is stronger for fresh cinematic drafts, audio-ready ad concepts, and high-polish short tests.
Can I extend an uploaded or public Luma clip?
Ray 3.2 Extend adds five new seconds forward or backward only from an eligible owned direct Luma generation. Uploaded or copied public videos do not supply that lineage. Creation keyframes and Modify guide frames remain separate and cannot be added to Extend; automatic assembly with the original is not promised.