Runway 4.5 vs Veo 3.1 vs Sora 2 — How to Use Runway’s Top-Rated Video Model

Runway just dropped Gen 4. 5. They call it the world's top rated video model and it's currently number one on the artificial analysis texttovideo benchmark. But here's the thing. Sora 2 and VO3. 1 already focus on completeness. Audio and longer scenes included. Runway Gen 4. 5 clearly prioritizes visual quality first with audio multi-shot labeled as coming soon. On paper, all three look strong. In practice, they behave very differently. So, which one should you actually use? Today, I'm putting all three through identical tests. Same prompts, same conditions. We're testing simple motion, complex character scenes, and physics stress tests that break most AI video generators. By the end of this video, you'll know exactly which tool to pick for your workflow. whether you need photo realism, synchronized dialogue, or the longest clip durations. Let me give

you the quick rundown on each model before we test them. Runway Gen 4. 5 is Runway's latest flagship video model. It launched December 1st, 2025, and Runway positions it as a top rated model, including reported 1,47 ELO score and the number one spot on the artificial analysis texttovideo benchmark. The big pitch is photo realism and control, strong prompt adherence, improved temporal consistency, and highquality lighting, camera, and composition. In Gen 4. 5 today, generation is limited to text to video. Native audio and multi-shot support are explicitly marked as coming soon, so sound still needs to be handled separately in post. Sora 2 was introduced on September 30th, 2025. The headline feature is synchronized audio generated with the video, dialogue, sound effects, and ambient sound in one pass. In addition, OpenAI highlights the ability to bring real people into generated scenes using a short source clip with safeguards around consent. VO 3. 1 is Google's video model available through the Gemini API. It generates highfidelity 8-second videos at 720p or 1080p with natively generated audio. VO3. 1 supports video extension. You can extend VO generated clips to create longer scenes, including sequences that can run for around a minute or more. It also supports first and last frame control and lets you use up to three reference images to guide the output.

All right, before we jump into the tests, let me show you how I'm actually running these comparisons because this is where AM Pro becomes really useful. I'm doing a good chunk of these generations right inside AMS Pro, our all-in-one AI hub. It's not just a course platform with integrated tools like Prompt Creator or customtrained AM assistant. And we've got access to models like VO and Sora already built into the platform. If you join before the end of 2025, you're getting bonus generation credits as part of your membership. What makes this setup handy is I don't have to tap between five different apps while I'm learning or testing. I can pull up a prompt from our prompt lab. We've got 300 plus readyto use prompts for video images, workflows, tweak it with the prompt creator, generate and compare. It's all in one place. If you're regularly working with AI video tools, this kind of setup removes a lot of unnecessary friction. Right now, we're given 24% off annual memberships for the first 1,000 people. I'll drop the link in the description below. Enough theory. Let's put them to

the test. We're starting with a simple motion test. This is basic AI video generation. Camera movement, object movement, light inconsistency. If a model can't nail this, nothing else matters. Here's the prompt. A single red balloon floats upward through an empty white room. Slow camera pan following the balloon. Soft, natural window light from the left. Photorealistic, clean, simple, one subject, one action. Let's see how each model handles it. Runway

delivers a 10-second clip. The balloon is sharp, the motion is smooth, and the lighting is consistent throughout. The shadows under the balloon shift naturally as it rises. The camera pan is steady and matches the balloon's movement without lag or jitter. Surface detail on the balloon is mostly strong, but there are visible surface deformationations, slight dents and uneven tension in the material. Depending on how you look at it, this can read either as a realism detail or as a minor artifact. The specular highlights from the window light are still clear and the red color stays saturated across the clip with no noticeable color drift or temporal instability. What stands out here is the photo realism. If you showed me this without context, I believe it was shot on a real camera. The grain structure looks natural, the exposure is balanced, and the depth of field is shallow enough to feel cinematic without looking fake. The downside, no audio, dead silent. You'd need to add wind noise or ambient room tone in post. Runway nails the visual execution. If you need photorealistic motion with precise control, this is a strong result. Sora 2

also delivers a clean result. 10 seconds. The balloon floats smoothly and the camera follows without stuttering. The lighting is soft and directional, just like the prompt asked for. This is where Sora 2 starts to differentiate itself. The model generates subtle ambient audio alongside the video, a faint room tone that adds a sense of space and presence. It's understated, but it helps the scene feel less sterile and more grounded. Visually, the result

is slightly softer than runways. The balloon looks more glossy here, and the surface reflections are actually more pleasing. At the same time, the image has less fine texture overall, especially in the walls and background, which makes it feel a bit smoother and less detailed than runways output while still remaining clearly photorealistic. Physics- wise, the balloon movement is natural. It doesn't teleport. It doesn't glitch. It just rises smoothly, and the camera tracks it with realistic inertia. If you need video with audio in one pass, Sora 2 saves you a step. The visuals are strong, and the sound integration is seamless. VO 3. 1 gives you an 8-second clip by default. The balloon floats upward, the camera pans, and the lighting is clearly directional from the left, matching the prompt. The initial generation is produced at 720p, and after generation, you can upscale the clip to 1080p, which improves perceived sharpness while keeping motion smooth. Audio is included. You get light noise similar to Sora 2, maybe a touch more pronounced. Visually, the balloon itself looks good, but the overall image feels slightly more plastic compared to Runway or Sora 2. Shadows stay consistent, but specular highlights on the balloon are flatter, and the scene lacks some fine material nuance. Toward the end of the clip, a visible defect appears on the ceiling above the balloon. And after upscaling to 1080p, similar artifacts become noticeable across other parts of the frame. One advantage, if you need a longer clip, you can extend this 8-second output well beyond its original length using scene extension. Vo 3. 1 is strong on flexibility and built-in audio. The visuals are clean and usable, but in this test, Runway and Sora 2 edg it out on pure photo realism. So, simple

motion. All three models handle it well. Runway Gen 4. 5 wins on photo realism. The textures are tighter, the lighting is more refined, and the surface details are excellent, but you get no audio. Sora 2 balances strong visuals with synchronized audio. The image is slightly softer than Runway, but the sound integration makes it a more complete package out of the box. Vo 3. 1 delivers solid visuals with audio, and you get the flexibility to extend clips beyond 8 seconds. The photo realism is good, but not quite at runway or Sora's level in this test. But that doesn't mean VO will fall behind in more demanding tests. Now, we're testing

characters, camera movement, and environment all at once. This is where most AI video models start to struggle. Can they maintain facial detail, keep anatomy consistent, and handle complex interactions without breaking? Here's the prompt. Two people sitting at a cafe table talking and laughing, medium shot, golden hour lighting. One person gestures with their hands while speaking. Realistic facial expressions, ambient cafe sounds in the background. This tests character rendering, multi-person interaction, gesture accuracy, facial animation, lighting, continuity, and audio sync if the model supports it. Runway gives you a

10-second clip. Both characters are visible, sitting across from each other. The golden hour lighting is warm and directional, casting soft shadows across the table. Facial detail is good, but not exceptional. Skin texture is visible and the expressions read clearly, but eye sharpness could be better in some moments. Hand motion is generally fluid, though there are a few problematic spots where the hands don't look fully natural. The reaction of the man on the right feels natural. He laughs throughout the scene, moving his upper body along with the motion, which comes across as human rather than static or robotic. The interaction feels alive. Camera framing is stable. It's a medium shot with a slight angle and the depth field keeps both characters in focus while softly blurring the background. The background blur, other cafe visitors are visible, moving and living their own lives, which adds realism to the scene. Now, the downsides. First, there's no audio. You're watching people talk and laugh, but you hear nothing. You need to add dialogue, laughter, ambient cafe noise, and possibly light background music and post. Second, the clip is short. If you wanted a longer conversation, you'd need to generate multiple clips and stitch them together, which introduces continuity challenges. Visually, this is a solid result. It was generated in real time on the first attempt. With further prompt iteration, it's likely possible to achieve a better outcome, but for the sake of fairness, I'm showing everything live using the same prompt across all models and only

once. Sora 2 delivers a 10-second clip. Both characters are present sitting at the cafe table. Golden hour lighting is warm and consistent. Facial expressions are animated and believable. Here's where Sora 2 separates itself. The audio is fully synchronized. You hear both characters talking. The dialogue is clear, the voices are distinct, and the lip sync is accurate. One character says something, the other laughs, and the sound matches the visual timing perfectly. You also get ambient cafe sounds. The audio layer makes this feel like a real scene instead of a silent film. — I swear the barista looked at me like I was asking for a moon rock when I said no foam. — It's because you said it with that dramatic pause. You have to own the request. — Oh, so it's an acting exercise. — Exactly. You need to give the energy of someone who knows their milk. — The gestures are natural. When one character raises their hand to emphasize a point, the motion is smooth and the hand anatomy is correct. The other character nods and reacts in sync with the dialogue. Physics- wise, everything works. No objects floating, no characters morphing, the table, the chairs, and the background cafe elements remain consistent throughout the clip. If you're creating content that needs dialogue and sound effects baked in, Sora 2 is hard to beat. The audio visual sync is seamless and the character performance is strong. VO 3. 1 generates

an 8-second clip. Both characters are visible at the cafe table. Golden Hour lighting is present and the scene is well lit. Facial expressions are animated and both characters look engaged. Audio is included. We get dialogue. Two voices clear enough to understand. The lip sync is decent but not as tight as Sora 2. Ambient cafe audio is clearly present. — And then he said, "That's not my cat. " I swear I couldn't believe it. — Oh wow, that is hilarious. So what did you do then? — Background conversations from nearby tables, street noise, and the clanking of cutlery. The soundsscape feels natural and layered, and in this scene, it actually comes across as better than Sora 2's with more convincing spatial depth and less of a generic ambience feel. One character gestures and the hand movement is smooth. No major anatomy errors. The gesture timing feels natural. Visually, the quality is strong even at 720p. Facial expressions read clearly. The golden hour lighting looks natural, and the scene feels lively and convincing. In many respects, the overall look here is actually stronger than what we saw from Runway and Sora 2. There are still a few noticeable issues. The man's mug has handles on both sides. He starts drinking before finishing his spoken line, and in the background behind him, a mug briefly appears duplicated. Aside from these specific artifacts, this result comes very close to being the strongest of the three. And with some prompt refinement, it could likely be pushed even further. The big advantage here is extendability. If you need this scene to run longer, you can extend it using VO's scene extension feature. Runway and Sora cap you at 10 to 15 seconds without stitching multiple

clips together. So complex character scenes, this is where the differences between the models become much clearer. And this is where VO starts to perform much stronger than it did in the simpler test. Runway Gen 4. 5 delivers a solid visual result with stable framing, natural lighting, and generally believable character motion. Facial detail is good, though not exceptional, and there are occasional issues with hand realism. The biggest limitation is still the lack of audio. Any dialogue, laughter, or ambient cafe sound has to be built entirely in post. Sora 2 stands out for its tight audio visual synchronization. Dialogue, lips sync, and timing between speech and reactions are handled very well, and the scene feels coherent and complete out of the box. The character performance is convincing, gestures are clean, and the overall experience is polished, even if the visuals themselves aren't dramatically ahead of the others. VO 3. 1 is the surprise here. The scene looks lively and convincing with strong expressions and natural lighting. The ambient audio feels layered and realistic. There are clear isolated artifacts, duplicated objects, and a few logic breaks and character actions. But outside of those moments, this result comes very close to being the strongest of the three. Add to that the ability to extend the scene, and Veo becomes especially compelling with some prompt refinement. Let's push them harder. Now

we're testing physics simulation, water, collisions, physical cause and effect. This is where AI video models break down. Most of them can't handle complex realworld physics without artifacts, glitches, or just outright nonsense. Let's see how these three perform. Here's the prompt. A glass of water tips over on a wooden table. The water spills across the table surface and drips onto the floor. Realistic water physics with continuous synchronized sound. The glass tipping, water splashing across the table, and droplets hitting the floor. Close-up shot. Natural lighting. This tests liquid dynamics, surface interaction, gravity, reflection, refraction, and temporal consistency. If the water doesn't behave like real water, the model fails, runway delivers

the clip, the glass tips over, and water starts pouring out onto the table. Visually, the scene looks realistic, but there's a major physics issue right away. Even as water keeps flowing out with noticeable force, the water level inside the glass doesn't actually drop. The glass continues to look partially full well after it's tipped over, which breaks basic physical logic. Once the water is out of the glass, the behavior improves significantly. It spreads across the wooden table surface in a believable way, follows reflections and highlights, and gradually reaches the edge. As it spills over, droplets form and drip down naturally with convincing motion and timing. Reflections and refractions are handled well. The table surface distorts through the water layer and the lighting creates clean, realistic highlights on the liquid. The interaction between the water and the table edge is one of the stronger parts of this result. Surface tension and pooling on the table look decent, but the core issue remains impossible to ignore. The water never truly empties from the glass even though it keeps pouring out. The clip is also completely silent. There's no glass impact, no splashing, and no droplets hitting the floor. So all audio would need to be added in post. Sora 2 generates the

clip. The glass tips over and reacts convincingly on impact with a natural bounce that immediately feels more grounded than in runways result. The water starts flowing out. And this time the volume behavior makes sense. The glass actually empties as the liquid spills onto the table. The water motion is slightly slowed down, but it remains believable. It spreads naturally across the wooden surface, flows towards the edges, and begins to drip off. On the table, a trapped air bubble forms in the pulled water and later pops in realistic ripples that spread outward. A subtle but convincing physical detail. Audio is present but narrowly focused. You hear continuous water flow and splashing and it stays synchronized with the visuals. However, there's no distinct impact sound when the glass hits the table and the water sound remains largely uniform without much variation or layering over time. Visually, the scene holds up well. The glass material, reflections, and lighting look realistic, and the overall physics of the water exiting the glass feel more correct than in runways output. There is an odd moment near the end where additional water appears to pour onto the glass from above which breaks continuity, but it happens late in the clip. Overall, Sora 2 delivers a more physically consistent result than runway. Now, let's see what VO has to offer. VO 3. 1 delivers the most complete

result in this test. Glass tips over naturally, splashes form on impact, and the water flow feels energetic and physical. Reflections, highlights, and splash shapes all read as convincingly real. Audio is a major strength here. You hear everything. The glass hitting the table, the initial splash, the sheet of water slapping onto the surface, and the runoff hitting the floor. The sound design covers the entire action chain and feels more layered and dynamic than Sora 2. Visually, the water behaves correctly on the table. It spreads along the wood grain, pools, and then spills over the edge in a believable way. Vio is also the only model here that clearly shows water already spreading across the floor, which adds a lot to the realism of the scene. The main issue is volume. There's simply too much water under the table, more than a single glass could realistically contain. That breaks physical consistency and is hard to ignore once you notice it. Even with that flaw, this is the most realistic overall result. The motion, lighting, splashes, reflections, and sound design all work together. If VO can rein in water volume consistency, it would clearly lead this category. This test clearly shows how

differently each model handles physical consistency, audio, and realism. Runway Gen 4. 55 looks convincing once the water is already on the table. Reflections, refractions, surface interaction, and dripping behavior are handled well. However, the core physics break immediately. The water level inside the glass never drops even as liquid continues pouring out combined with the lack of any audio. This makes runway visually strong but physically incorrect as a complete simulation. Sora 2 fixes the most important issue. The glass empties properly. The motion feels grounded and the interaction between water and surface is consistent. It also includes synchronized audio which adds realism. That said, the sound design is limited and repetitive, and there's a late continuity issue where extra water appears from above. VO3. 1 provides the most complete experience overall. The glass impact, splashes, flowing water, and runoff are all supported by layered sound design. Visually, the water spreads, pools, spills over the edge, and reaches the floor. Something only VO clearly shows. The main drawback is volume. There is more water than a single glass should contain. After three

tests, simple motion, complex character scene, and physics stress test, the pattern is clear. Each model has a different core strength, and the gaps show up in different places. Runway Gen 4. 5 is the most reliable on raw image fidelity and straightforward shots. It looked the most camera real in the balloon test with the tightest textures and lighting, but as soon as realism depends on physical logic or completeness, it falls behind. No audio at all. and the water volume inconsistency in the physics test breaks the illusion immediately. Sora 2 is the most consistent at producing a coherent synchronized scene. It handled dialogue and lip sync best in the cafe test and it fixed the most important physics failure from runway by making the glass actually empty. The trade-off is occasional weird continuity moments and audio that can feel limited or repetitive compared to the best case. VO 3. 1 is the most complete when it lands in the cafe scene. The ambiance felt more layered and immersive than Sora 2's and in the physics test delivered the strongest overall realism package. Impact, splashes, runoff, and floor interactions supported by sound that covers the whole action chain. The main downside is physical consistency at the volume level, too much water, plus isolated artifacts and character logic. So, which one should

you use? If you care most about the sharpest, most photoreal frames, especially for clean, controlled shots like the simple motion test, choose Runway Gen 4. 5. Just remember, you're doing all audio yourself. And you'll want to watch for physics logic breaks when realism depends on volume or cause and effect. If you need audio visual synchronization baked in, especially dialogue and lip sync like cafe test, choose Sora 2. It's the most reliable seen in one pass and also held together better than runway in the physics test that where the glass actually empties. If you want more complete immersive results when it works with strong ambience, full action chain sound effects, and condensing physical behavior, choose VO 3. 1. It also gives you more flexibility to extend and iterate. Though you may need to refine prompts to avoid issues like inconsistent water volume or isolated artifacts, all three are strong. Your best pick comes down to what you are optimizing for. Raw visual fidelity, sync dialogue and sound, or the most complete and flexible output. And if you want to go deeper or explore more tools beyond just video generation, check out AMS or Pro. Link in the description below. 24% off for the first 1,000 members. Thanks for watching. and I'll see you in the next one.