Veo and Flow on where the sound comes from
Veo and Flow hold one of two fives for sound, alongside a five on picture quality. The published material behind both is unusually specific about models and capabilities, and the row falls away sharply on everything around generation. As of 2026-09-12.
| Point | As the rubric has it, or as the table records it |
|---|---|
| The question this column asks | Where does the audio come from? |
| What this tool rates | 5 of 5 |
| Tools holding the same value | Two of the sixteen rated here |
| What a five looks like | Speech generated with the picture, in named languages, with voice selection |
| What sits at the bottom of the scale | Silent output with no statement about audio at all |
| Tools left unrated on this column | None of the sixteen |
Inclusion rule. The rubric's own wording for this criterion, with this tool's value beside it. Nothing here is taken from a demo, a benchmark or a review. Order. The question first, then the value, then the rule it was given under.
1The whole column, with this row marked
| Tool | Sound |
|---|---|
| CapCut | 4 of 5 |
| Dreamina | 3 of 5 |
| Hailuo (MiniMax) | 5 of 5 |
| invideo AI | 4 of 5 |
| Kling AI | 3 of 5 |
| LTX Studio | 3 of 5 |
| Luma Dream Machine | 3 of 5 |
| Morph Studio | 2 of 5 |
| Pika | 2 of 5 |
| PixVerse | 3 of 5 |
| Runway | 3 of 5 |
| SceneMixer | 4 of 5 |
| Sora (OpenAI) | 4 of 5 |
| Veo / Flow (Google) | 5 of 5 |
| Vidu | 2 of 5 |
| Wan (Tongyi Wanxiang) | 4 of 5 |
Inclusion rule. Tools rated on this rubric: a public English product page addressing at least four of the seven criteria. An unrated cell means nothing usable is published on that point. Order. Alphabetical by tool name.
2Two fives on the generation columns, and a floor beside them
Picture and sound both reach the top of their columns here, and script handling sits at the floor with eleven other tools. That is a coherent product decision rather than an oversight: the published material describes a model and its capabilities, not a production pipeline.
The rubric records the shape as it is. A reader whose constraint is the quality of a single generated shot with speech in it has found the row; a reader whose constraint is getting from a manuscript to sixty episodes has not.
3What a five on sound is worth against a two on cost
Cost transparency rates two on this row, because access is bundled rather than priced per second in a way a production can read before committing. So the audio capability is documented and the price of using it is not.
That pairing recurs across this table and is worth naming: capability pages are written by product teams and rate pages are written by finance, and the two rarely reach the same level of detail. The columns that describe features run ahead of the columns that describe money.
4Where the register's own figures complicate the picture
The channel behind this row publishes a five-tier per-second curve elsewhere, from five cents to sixty, and states that a failed generation is not charged. That last sentence appears on no other rate page in this register.
So the low cost-transparency value describes one route to the product rather than all of them. Which route a production uses decides whether the price is readable, and the rating follows the page the rubric reads rather than the cheapest available door.
Ratings describe what each vendor publishes on its own pages, read 2026-09-12, and are given under the rule on how scoring works. This column across every tool is on sound; this tool across all seven is on Veo / Flow (Google). Nearby cells: LTX Studio, assembly, Veo and Flow, assembly. All of them: single ratings.