ZMIME
Video model comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Wan v2.6 Flash vs Veo 3.1

Newest: Wan v2.6 Flash · Widest inputs: Wan v2.6 Flash · Native audio: Veo 3.1. Not enough arena votes yet for a quality score, so this is a spec comparison.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Wan v2.6 Flash

    Released Dec 16, 2025

    • Text to video
    • Image to video
    • Video editing
    • Audio input
    • Arena—
    • From—
    • Max length—
    Full specs Remove Wan v2.6 Flash

  2. Google

    Veo 3.1

    Released Oct 15, 2025

    • Text to video
    • Image to video
    • Video editing
    • Native audio
    • Arena1,398
    • From$0.20/s
    • Max length8 s
    Full specs Remove Veo 3.1

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — At a glance

Where they differ

Quality is the arena score from blind, side-by-side human votes. Price, length and resolution come from each lab’s own listings.

  • NewestWan v2.6 FlashWan v2.6 Flash Dec 16, 2025 · Veo 3.1 Oct 15, 2025
  • Widest inputsWan v2.6 FlashWan v2.6 Flash: Text prompts, Reference images, Audio, Video · Veo 3.1: Text prompts, Reference images, Video
  • Native audioVeo 3.1Generates an audio track with the video: Wan v2.6 Flash no · Veo 3.1 yes
  • Image to videoBoth animate imagesStarts from an uploaded image: Wan v2.6 Flash yes · Veo 3.1 yes
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs and apps
  • Most API hostsVeo 3.1Wan v2.6 Flash: 1 · Veo 3.1: 3
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Dashes mean the data is not published.

Wan v2.6 Flash vs Veo 3.1 specifications side by side
SpecificationWan v2.6 FlashAlibaba (Qwen)Veo 3.1Google
Quality (blind human votes)
Text to video arenaElo-style score · higher is better—1,364 ±14#12 of 48 · 13,741 votes
Image to video arenaElo-style score · higher is better—1,398 ±10#13 of 48 · 25,116 votes
Price
Starting price—$0.20/s 720p–1080p
Top price—$0.60/s 4K, with audio
10-second clip—$2.00at the starting rate
How it is billed—Per second
Output
ProducesVideoVideo with sound
Resolutions—720p · 1080p · 4K
Highest resolution—4K
Clip length—4, 6 or 8 s
Longest clip—8 s
Sound—Optional
Frame control—First and last frame
Aspect ratios—16:9 · 9:16
Inputs
Text promptsYesYes
Start image (image to video)YesYes
Video inputYesYes
Audio inputYesNo
Access
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API hosts13 (best)
ReleasedDec 16, 2025Oct 15, 2025
03 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better, Wan v2.6 Flash or Veo 3.1?

Neither model has enough arena votes for a reliable quality score yet, so this page compares specs only. Run the same three or four prompts through each and judge the results.

Which is cheaper?

Veo 3.1 costs from $0.20/s (720p–1080p), up to $0.60/s (4K, with audio). A 10-second clip at the lowest rate: Veo 3.1 $2.00. Wan v2.6 Flash has no published per-second price. Prices are list rates and change often; check the lab before budgeting.

How long can the videos be, and at what resolution?

Wan v2.6 Flash: length not published; Veo 3.1: 4, 6 or 8 s, 720p / 1080p / 4K.

What is the difference between Wan v2.6 Flash and Veo 3.1?

Wan v2.6 Flash is a video model from Alibaba (Qwen) (Dec 16, 2025), taking text prompts, reference images, audio and video and producing video. Veo 3.1 is a video model from Google (Oct 15, 2025), taking text prompts, reference images and video and producing video with sound.

Which is newer?

Wan v2.6 Flash Dec 16, 2025; Veo 3.1 Oct 15, 2025.

Which generates video with sound?

Generates an audio track with the video: Wan v2.6 Flash no; Veo 3.1 yes.

Can I run any of these on my own hardware?

No open weights. Both are available only through APIs and apps.

04 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons