VIDEO MODELS • Framework updated · Jul 2026
AI Video Model Comparison Template: Test One Brief Across Every Tool
Spec sheets and marketing pages make AI video tools look interchangeable, but real cost only shows up when you run the same job through each one. This guide gives you a reproducible comparison template: one fixed brief, a locked duration and resolution, a written approval rule, a credit cost per attempt, and a dated source card for every tool you test. Fill it in once and you can re-run it whenever prices or models change.
Why one fixed brief beats a feature grid
A feature grid compares what vendors choose to advertise. A fixed brief compares what you will actually pay for. Start by writing a single prompt you would really use, then freeze every variable that moves cost: the exact wording, the clip length, the output resolution, and whether audio is on. Every tool in your test gets the same locked brief, so differences in the results come from the model, not from you asking for different things. The point is not to crown a winner in the abstract. It is to see which tool clears your quality bar for the fewest credits on the job you keep repeating. Once the brief is fixed, the rest of the template just records what each tool spends and produces against it.
The five cells every row needs
Give every tool one row with five cells. Fixed brief: the shared prompt and reference inputs. Duration and resolution: the exact seconds and pixel target you locked. Approval rule: a written pass or fail test, such as usable without a retry on the first two generations. Credit cost per attempt: the credits one generation burns at your fixed settings. That last cell is where tools diverge sharply. Runway states Gen-4.5 costs 12 credits per second, so a fixed five-second clip is 60 credits per attempt. Pika instead prices by model and edit feature, roughly 10 credits for a Turbo action and 20 to 80 for Pro-model edits, so you must fix the model and the feature, not just the clip, before the numbers compare. Record the attempt cost, then multiply by your real retry count.
Build a source-and-date card
Prices and models on these pages change often, so every row needs a small card noting the source URL and the date you read it. Date it because the details drift under your feet. Runway's pricing page now lists third-party models alongside its own, Luma's Dream Machine pricing page now brands as Luma Agents, and Google exposes the same Veo model through several surfaces, including the Gemini app, Google Flow, Google AI Studio, and the Gemini API, each with its own limits. Capture the things a spec grid hides: Google's Veo outputs 1080p and 4K at roughly eight seconds with native audio, and every clip is watermarked with SynthID. Pika limits its Free and Basic tiers to 480p while paid tiers unlock all resolutions and remove the watermark. Without a dated card, you cannot tell whether a stale number or a real price change is behind a later mismatch.
A worked example in credits per attempt
Say your brief is a five-second product clip at your locked resolution, and your approval rule is two acceptable takes within the first three attempts. On Runway, one attempt at 12 credits per second is 60 credits for the five-second clip, so three attempts is three times that, and a Standard plan's 625 monthly credits, which Runway equates to about 52 seconds of Gen-4.5, covers only a handful of these jobs. On Google Flow, the same brief draws from 50 daily free credits, with costs that vary by media type and model, so your effective ceiling is a per-day budget rather than a monthly one. Write the formula as attempt cost times attempts to first approval, then divide the plan's credits by that total to get jobs per cycle. Swapping any variable, longer duration, higher resolution, or a pricier model, changes the answer, which is exactly why you lock them first.
Normalize, then add rollover and watermark columns
A fair comparison fixes four axes before reading any price: model, resolution, duration, and audio on or off, because every major tool meters on those. Two more columns decide the true monthly cost. Rollover: Runway says Standard and Pro monthly credits do not roll over, while its Max plan carries up to one month of unused credits and separately purchased credits never expire; Luma resets monthly credits each cycle and lets unused ones expire. Rights and watermark: Runway lists no watermarks as a Standard plan feature, Luma's entry paid Plus plan includes commercial use, and Pika's paid plans add no-watermark downloads and commercial use, while Google's Veo watermarks every output with SynthID regardless of tier. A tool that looks cheap per attempt can lose on expiry or on a watermark you cannot remove, so score those columns alongside the credit math.
Handle the tools you cannot verify
Some vendors block automated access or gate pricing behind a login, so you may not be able to read a clean figure the day you build your grid. Do not paste numbers from third-party blog roundups into a cell, because those are frequently stale or wrong. Instead, leave the credit and price cells blank, mark the row as pending verification, and note the official page you still need to open in a real browser session. When you can reach it, fill the cell and stamp the date, the same as any other row. Treat a missing but honest cell as more useful than a confident guess, since the whole point of the template is that every number can be traced to a page and a date. Re-run the grid on a schedule, because a tool that failed your budget last quarter may have changed its model or its credit rate since.
Editorial note: This framework is general information, not a vendor endorsement. Check the current pricing, terms, and data-handling details directly with the provider before buying.