Veo 3.1 (Fast) | An Honest AI Video Generator Review

Oct 23

Note: This Review is Non-Biased and Not Affiliated with Google.

In this article, we will give you an in-depth breakdown of Google’s AI Video Generator, Veo 3.1 Fast.

Google DeepMind offers a Quality version and the Fast Version of Veo 3.1. We have a review of the Quality version here. This article covers the review of Veo 3.1 Fast. The specs are basically the same, listed out below.

Veo 3.1 Fast Specs:

Up to 8 Seconds of Video
Generate Videos in 1080p
Accessible through third-party Platforms
24 Frames Per Second

You are most likely thinking to yourself, ‘What’s the difference between these two versions of Veo 3.1?!’

It basically comes down to speed over quality. One prioritizes less render time (Veo 3.1 Fast), while the other prioritizes quality of the renders (Quality).

Speed and quality of the generations, as it is assumed, are the biggest differences between these two models, but in all honesty, that gap between those things is not as significant as you might expect.

The generation time is not significantly faster when using Veo 3.1 Fast versus Veo 3.1 Quality. There is a clear gap in quality, but it is not as significant as you might expect.

Check out the reviews and ratings from Veo 3.1 Fast below, and then go and compare the Veo 3.1 quality review here.

Another difference between the two models is the price point. The fast model is decently cheaper than the quality model.

Veo 3.1 Fast - Benchmark Score (6.9/10)

In our Curious Refuge Labs™ review, Veo 3.1 Fast was scored across five categories: Prompt Adherence, Temporal Consistency, Visual Fidelity, Motion Quality, and Style & Cinematic Realism. The average scores were:

Prompt Adherence: 7.3/10
Temporal Consistency: 6.5/10
Visual Fidelity: 7.1/10
Motion Quality: 6.9/10
Style & Cinematic Realism: 6.5/10
Total Curious Refuge Labs™ Score: 6.9/10

Veo 3.1 Fast’s ratings are consistent a few points down from the quality version of Veo 3.1.

The ratings are surprisingly similar and from what we might expect of a lesser quality version.

Veo 3.1 Fast | AI Video Expert Review

Below is a detailed review of how Veo 3.1 Fast performs against the categories listed above.

Prompt Adherence — 7.3/10

Prompt adherence is Veo 3.1 Fast’s strong suit (similar to Veo 3.1 Quality). Google’s AI Video Generators always seem to be a step ahead in these areas.

It understands direction well, especially when prompts are written like shot lists. The model favors cinematic structure over concept, thriving when you describe lenses, lighting, and subject framing.

Broad or emotional prompts still produce mixed results, but when you write like a DP, Veo listens.

Temporal Consistency — 6.5/10

Temporal consistency remains one of Veo’s weaker areas. The ‘AI-ness’ comes into play, similar to the quality version.

You’ll notice some micro-flickers or shape shifts when generating wider shots.

You can see this pretty clearly in the three examples above. It seems as though any sort of temporal consistency struggles from the start of the frog’s mouth and eye movements.

In the shot in the middle, the woman’s face struggles to have any form of consistency or stability.

In the shot on the right, the explosion is not terrible, but the soldiers turn into completely different shapes.

However, when the motion is contained, like a hero shot or emotional push-in, Veo maintains solid coherence across frames.

Visual Fidelity — 7.1/10

The visuals are among Veo 3.1 Fast’s strongest assets. Lighting feels natural, color grading is cinematic, and the surface textures hold up even under motion.

This model struggles with the details. The eyelid of the man in the shot on the right flickers in an unnatural and weird way, while the jewelry and fingers in the example on the left have a softness that hinders the quality of the generation as well.

Visual fidelity is strongest whenever generating shots that are less focused on smaller details (even if those details are a person's eyelids as they blink).

Motion Quality — 6.9/10

Veo 3.1 produces believable, expressive movement, especially in single-subject shots.

In the example on the right, this shot actually performed slightly better than Veo 3.1 quality in the motion of the liqud and the generator’s understanding of how the cup and liquid should interact.

Body mechanics and camera timing are decently fluid in the shot of the woman shadow boxing. One thing that many AI models struggle with is understanding the natural movements of a person in specific situations.

For instance, an AI video of a person cutting a cake may look incredibly realistic, but the thing that gives it away is that the person cuts a piece out of the middle of the cake (which should be illegal).

In the shadow boxing example, you can see at some points in the shot, she looks to be more flailing than shadow boxing.

Style & Cinematic Realism — 6.5/10

Veo keeps its cinematic edge, balancing stylized frames with grounded realism. Lighting direction, contrast, and composition continue to feel unified, but when the frame gets complex, the “AI sheen” creeps in.

You can see pretty clearly in the examples above the diversity in realism from Veo 3.1 Fast’s generations.

The crowd shot on the left ends with the notorious ‘AI-ness,’ while the details of the jewelry in the middle similarly fall apart and look more like slight mesh.

At the same time, this AI Video model can produce some spectacular generations that resemble reality (as shown in the example on the right).

The inconsistency leads to its slightly lower score when it comes to realism.

Do We Recommend Veo 3.1 Fast for AI Video Artists?

Veo 3.1 Fast isn’t revolutionary, but it’s stable, cinematic, and consistent enough to use in short-form storytelling, concept reels, and stylized promos.

Think of it as the tool that makes “AI filmmaking feel real” — as long as you keep the prompt simple and the shot controlled.

How Does Veo 3.1 Fast Stack Up Against Other AI Video Tools?

Veo 3.1 is many people’s favorite AI Video generator on the market. While it isn’t necessarily at the top of our list, we are still big fans of the tool. Check out where it ranks below and let us know if you agree on these ratings!