Skip to main content

GoogleVideo model

Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash

In text to video, Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash is in place 1 of 23, with image to video in place 2. A 5 s clip costs about $0.51.

Image to videoRank 2 of 21

1,488Arena ratinglevel with MiniMax H3

Text to videoRank 1 of 23

1,516Arena ratinglevel with FLUX.3 Video

5 s clipRank 9 of 19

$0.51$0.10 per secondlower is better

Clip lengthRank 33 of 63

10slongest single cliphigher is better

PopularityRank 410 of 875

33out of 100same as last month

Summary

At $0.10 per second of video it is fairly cheap; a typical video model costs $0.12.

New in Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash are the stable Omni video API and the documented succession to Gemini Omni Flash. Text, images, and videos up to 10 seconds feed generation, editing, or extension. Output ranges from 3 to 10 seconds, 360p through 4K, at 24 frames per second.

The context window is 1,048,576 tokens. Google lists access on the paid API tier with no free tier, while the predecessor’s preview identifier is discontinued.

Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash benchmarks

Image to video arena

How people rate generated videos in blind comparisons, Elo points · higher is better

20 of 21 models

MiniMax H31,495
Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash1,488
Dreamina Seedance 2.5 720p1,477
Dreamina Seedance 2.0 720p1,475
Gemini Omni Flash1,465
Grok Imagine Video 1.51,456
FLUX.3 Video1,449
Wan 2.71,428
Grok Imagine Video1,415
Veo 3.11,398
Veo 3.1 Fast1,385
Vidu Q3 Pro1,363
Kling 3.0 Pro1,354
Wan 2.61,310
PixVerse V5.61,299
Kling 2.6 Pro1,294
Hailuo 2.31,262
HunyuanVideo 1.51,198
Wan 2.2 A14B1,170
LTX-2 19B1,159

as of September 22, 2026 · Source: LMArena

Text to video arena

How people rate generated videos in blind comparisons, Elo points · higher is better

20 of 23 models

Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash1,516
Gemini Omni Flash1,513
FLUX.3 Video1,493
Grok Imagine Video 1.51,492
Dreamina Seedance 2.0 720p1,479
Dreamina Seedance 2.5 720p1,474
MiniMax H31,460
Muse Video1,456
Sora 2 Pro1,368
Veo 3.11,364
Veo 3.1 Fast1,362
Sora 21,343
Grok Imagine Video1,342
Wan 2.71,337
Wan 2.61,327
PixVerse V5.61,240
Runway Gen-4.51,225
Kling 2.6 Pro1,216
Hailuo 2.31,206
HunyuanVideo 1.51,169

as of September 22, 2026 · Source: LMArena

Show all 46 individual results from 15 sources

Page 1 of 4

Published benchmarks

LMArena Text to Video

Elo ratings summarize pairwise comparisons within this leaderboard. They are not percentages. The scale does not express absolute quality or linear gaps between models.

Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash1,516 Elo
Gemini Omni Flash1,513 Elo
FLUX.3 Video1,493 Elo
Grok Imagine Video 1.51,492 Elo
Dreamina Seedance 2.0 720p1,479 Elo
Dreamina Seedance 2.5 720p1,474 Elo
MiniMax H31,460 Elo
Muse Video1,456 Elo
Sora 2 Pro1,368 Elo
Veo 3.11,364 Elo
Veo 3.1 Fast1,362 Elo
Sora 21,343 Elo
Grok Imagine Video1,342 Elo
Wan 2.71,337 Elo
Wan 2.61,327 Elo
PixVerse V5.61,240 Elo
Runway Gen-4.51,225 Elo
Kling 2.6 Pro1,216 Elo
Hailuo 2.31,206 Elo
HunyuanVideo 1.51,169 Elo
LTX-2 19B1,154 Elo
Wan 2.2 A14B1,132 Elo
Pika 2.21,009 Elo

higher is betterAs of November 3, 2026Scale: 0 Elo - 1,516 Elo

Source: LMArena
gradually.ai
Methodology and context
Metric
elo-rating
Scale
No upper bound is documented. The chart spans the recorded values and zero.
Participants
23
Sample
1,784
Source: LMArena

LMArena Image to Video

Elo ratings summarize pairwise comparisons within this leaderboard. They are not percentages. The scale does not express absolute quality or linear gaps between models.

MiniMax H31,495 Elo
Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash1,488 Elo
Dreamina Seedance 2.5 720p1,477 Elo
Dreamina Seedance 2.0 720p1,475 Elo
Gemini Omni Flash1,465 Elo
Grok Imagine Video 1.51,456 Elo
FLUX.3 Video1,449 Elo
Wan 2.71,428 Elo
Grok Imagine Video1,415 Elo
Veo 3.11,398 Elo
Veo 3.1 Fast1,385 Elo
Vidu Q3 Pro1,363 Elo
Kling 3.0 Pro1,354 Elo
Wan 2.61,310 Elo
PixVerse V5.61,299 Elo
Kling 2.6 Pro1,294 Elo
Hailuo 2.31,262 Elo
HunyuanVideo 1.51,198 Elo
Wan 2.2 A14B1,170 Elo
LTX-2 19B1,159 Elo
Pika 2.2997 Elo

higher is betterAs of November 3, 2026Scale: 0 Elo - 1,495 Elo

Source: LMArena
gradually.ai
Methodology and context
Metric
elo-rating
Scale
No upper bound is documented. The chart spans the recorded values and zero.
Participants
21
Sample
3,734
Source: LMArena

Measurements without matching peer values

These measurements have no matching peer values under the same test conditions. Their original values and sources remain available here.

AA Video Arena Elo (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
1132
Score
1132
Metric
pairwise human-preference Elo
Unit
elo
Benchmark version
AA-Video-T2V v2.1
Category
text-to-video
Direction
Higher is better
Sample
6302
Confidence interval
15
Lower confidence bound
1117
Upper confidence bound
1147
Source type
independent-evaluator
Evaluator
Artificial Analysis AA-Video-T2V v2.1
Status
superseded
Retrieved at
2026-10-16
Methodology
Independent evaluation. Text-to-video with audio; exact source row Gemini Omni Flash 1.1.
Context
The published comparison includes audio; it is not a silent-video-only score.
Source Artificial Analysis AA-Video-T2V v2.1
AA Video Arena Elo (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
1134
Score
1134
Metric
pairwise human-preference Elo
Unit
elo
Benchmark version
AA-Video-I2V v1.1
Category
image-to-video
Direction
Higher is better
Sample
3176
Confidence interval
17
Lower confidence bound
1117
Upper confidence bound
1151
Source type
independent-evaluator
Evaluator
Artificial Analysis AA-Video-I2V v1.1
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-16
Methodology
Independent evaluation. Image-to-video with audio; exact source row Gemini Omni Flash 1.1.
Context
The published comparison includes audio; it is not a silent-video-only score.
Source Artificial Analysis AA-Video-I2V v1.1
Physics-IQ Verified leaderboard score (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
35.34
Score
35.34
Metric
Physics-IQ Verified physical-understanding score on a 0-100 point scale
Unit
points
Benchmark version
Physics-IQ Verified leaderboard
Category
image-to-video
Direction
Higher is better
Source type
official-leaderboard
Evaluator
Physics-IQ Verified GitHub leaderboard
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-16
Methodology
Official benchmark leaderboard. Image-to-video (I2V); unmarked entry uses the model-specific best-practice prompt template. The leaderboard row does not disclose output resolution, duration, or a per-model sample count.
Context
This measures physical understanding on a 0-100 point scale, not general video quality. The benchmark paper does not evaluate this newer model, so no generation controls are imported from it. The leaderboard displays ± notation; no confidence interval or row-specific run count is inferred.
Source Physics-IQ Verified GitHub leaderboard
AA Video Arena Elo (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
1132
Score
1132
Metric
pairwise human-preference Elo
Unit
elo
Benchmark version
AA-Video-I2V v1.1, snapshot 2026-10-17
Category
image-to-video
Direction
Higher is better
Sample
3368
Confidence interval
17
Lower confidence bound
1115
Upper confidence bound
1149
Source type
independent-evaluator
Evaluator
Artificial Analysis AA-Video-I2V v1.1
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-17
Methodology
Independent evaluation. Image-to-video with audio; exact source row "Gemini Omni Flash 1.1"; output resolution not reported.
Context
Point-in-time Elo snapshot from AA-Video-I2V v1.1; the displayed sample count is the model row's appearances, not a prompt count. Output resolution is not reported.
Source Artificial Analysis AA-Video-I2V v1.1
AA-Video-Editing Elo, with audio (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
1149
Score
1149
Metric
Elo from pairwise human preference votes
Unit
elo
Benchmark version
AA-Video-Editing v1.1, with audio; page snapshot 2026-10-17
Category
video-editing
Direction
Higher is better
Sample
6778
Confidence interval
11
Lower confidence bound
1138
Upper confidence bound
1160
Source type
official-leaderboard
Evaluator
Artificial Analysis AA-Video-Editing v1.1
Status
superseded
Retrieved at
2026-10-17
Methodology
Official benchmark leaderboard. Exact board label Gemini Omni Flash 1.1. AA-Video-Editing ranks video models editing an input video from a text instruction, with audio kept, by Elo from pairwise human preference votes. The source reports 6,778 samples and the displayed 95% interval. Some prompts were declined by copyright and safety filters; the row reflects the remaining prompts. The board does not give a per-model serving revision or test resolution.
Context
This is an editing benchmark, not text-to-video or image-to-video generation. AA does not publish the per-model serving revision or test resolution. The reported score excludes prompts declined by the model's copyright and safety filters.
Source Artificial Analysis AA-Video-Editing v1.1
Rapidata Physics Benchmark overall pairwise Elo (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
1346
Score
1346
Metric
equal-weight mean of two Bradley–Terry/Elo human-preference leaderboard scores
Unit
elo
Benchmark version
Rapidata Physics Benchmark, README source commit 5f99e9587b9d04017e8d3effe682af2385f78061
Category
video
Direction
Higher is better
Confidence interval
27
Source type
independent-evaluator
Evaluator
Rapidata, image-to-video-physics-human-feedback-benchmark dataset README
Status
superseded
Retrieved at
2026-10-17
Methodology
Independent evaluation. One participant named by the dataset per model. On 65 Physics-IQ scenes, each model receives a switch-frame image and a human-written scene description and generates four approximately five-second image-to-video clips per scene. Human raters compare same-scene clips and answer which looks more realistic, either blind or with the real continuation visible. The overall row equally averages the two leaderboard fits. The README names no exact provider API route, serving revision, quantization, or output resolution. Dataset row: Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash. Leaderboard condition: overall.
Context
The README explicitly defines ± as a 95% confidence interval; its half-width is stored. No sampleCount is assigned: 65 scenes, approximately 260 generated clips per model, 21,125 pairwise rows in the pinned README, and 282,698 total votes describe the study or corpus, not the effective denominator of a model-specific Bradley–Terry fit. Current Hugging Face viewer metadata reports 22,625 rows, which conflicts with the pinned README; the discrepancy is unresolved and neither count is used as N. Overall, with-reference, and blind are projections of the same study and overlapping vote pool, not independent studies. Exact serving revision and resolution are not published.
Source Rapidata, image-to-video-physics-human-feedback-benchmark dataset README
Rapidata Physics Benchmark with-reference pairwise Elo (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
1366
Score
1366
Metric
Bradley–Terry/Elo human-preference score, with-reference leaderboard
Unit
elo
Benchmark version
Rapidata Physics Benchmark, README source commit 5f99e9587b9d04017e8d3effe682af2385f78061
Category
video
Direction
Higher is better
Confidence interval
39
Source type
independent-evaluator
Evaluator
Rapidata, image-to-video-physics-human-feedback-benchmark dataset README
Status
superseded
Retrieved at
2026-10-17
Methodology
Independent evaluation. One participant named by the dataset per model. On 65 Physics-IQ scenes, each model receives a switch-frame image and a human-written scene description and generates four approximately five-second image-to-video clips per scene. Human raters compare same-scene clips and answer which looks more realistic, either blind or with the real continuation visible. The overall row equally averages the two leaderboard fits. The README names no exact provider API route, serving revision, quantization, or output resolution. Dataset row: Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash. Leaderboard condition: with-reference.
Context
The README explicitly defines ± as a 95% confidence interval; its half-width is stored. No sampleCount is assigned: 65 scenes, approximately 260 generated clips per model, 21,125 pairwise rows in the pinned README, and 282,698 total votes describe the study or corpus, not the effective denominator of a model-specific Bradley–Terry fit. Current Hugging Face viewer metadata reports 22,625 rows, which conflicts with the pinned README; the discrepancy is unresolved and neither count is used as N. Overall, with-reference, and blind are projections of the same study and overlapping vote pool, not independent studies. Exact serving revision and resolution are not published.
Source Rapidata, image-to-video-physics-human-feedback-benchmark dataset README
Rapidata Physics Benchmark blind pairwise Elo (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
1325
Score
1325
Metric
Bradley–Terry/Elo human-preference score, blind leaderboard
Unit
elo
Benchmark version
Rapidata Physics Benchmark, README source commit 5f99e9587b9d04017e8d3effe682af2385f78061
Category
video
Direction
Higher is better
Confidence interval
38
Source type
independent-evaluator
Evaluator
Rapidata, image-to-video-physics-human-feedback-benchmark dataset README
Status
superseded
Retrieved at
2026-10-17
Methodology
Independent evaluation. One participant named by the dataset per model. On 65 Physics-IQ scenes, each model receives a switch-frame image and a human-written scene description and generates four approximately five-second image-to-video clips per scene. Human raters compare same-scene clips and answer which looks more realistic, either blind or with the real continuation visible. The overall row equally averages the two leaderboard fits. The README names no exact provider API route, serving revision, quantization, or output resolution. Dataset row: Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash. Leaderboard condition: blind.
Context
The README explicitly defines ± as a 95% confidence interval; its half-width is stored. No sampleCount is assigned: 65 scenes, approximately 260 generated clips per model, 21,125 pairwise rows in the pinned README, and 282,698 total votes describe the study or corpus, not the effective denominator of a model-specific Bradley–Terry fit. Current Hugging Face viewer metadata reports 22,625 rows, which conflicts with the pinned README; the discrepancy is unresolved and neither count is used as N. Overall, with-reference, and blind are projections of the same study and overlapping vote pool, not independent studies. Exact serving revision and resolution are not published.
Source Rapidata, image-to-video-physics-human-feedback-benchmark dataset README
Megaton V-Benchmark C01 Prompt Adherence (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
88.6
Score
88.6
Metric
Category score on Megaton's 0-100 scale
Unit
points
Benchmark version
V-Benchmark v2.3.0; report publication 1.6.0
Category
video-generation:prompt-adherence
Direction
Higher is better
Sample
36
Source type
independent-evaluator
Evaluator
Megaton, Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash V-Benchmark v2 report
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-17
Methodology
Independent evaluation. Named model: Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash; the report says generated via Google and evaluated August 28, 2026. Megaton V-Benchmark v2.3.0, report publication 1.6.0 dated October 2, 2026. Text-to-video methodology specifies 480p and 5 seconds; any closest-supported deviation is said to be noted, but this public report does not state a model-specific exception. Category C01 Prompt Adherence (20% publication weight); 36 videos were rated for this category. The report does not identify an exact Google API model ID or serving revision.
Context
The public report gives the number of videos rated for this category but does not expose prompt-level data or a category-specific confidence interval. The methodology's ±2 value is an empirical comparison for the combined index and is expressly not a universal statistical confidence interval; it is not transferred to this category. The exact evaluated Google API model ID and serving revision are not public.
Source Megaton, Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash V-Benchmark v2 report
Megaton V-Benchmark C02 Scene Consistency (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
88.56
Score
88.56
Metric
Category score on Megaton's 0-100 scale
Unit
points
Benchmark version
V-Benchmark v2.3.0; report publication 1.6.0
Category
video-generation:scene-consistency
Direction
Higher is better
Sample
36
Source type
independent-evaluator
Evaluator
Megaton, Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash V-Benchmark v2 report
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-17
Methodology
Independent evaluation. Named model: Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash; the report says generated via Google and evaluated August 28, 2026. Megaton V-Benchmark v2.3.0, report publication 1.6.0 dated October 2, 2026. Text-to-video methodology specifies 480p and 5 seconds; any closest-supported deviation is said to be noted, but this public report does not state a model-specific exception. Category C02 Scene Consistency (10% publication weight); 36 videos were rated for this category. The report does not identify an exact Google API model ID or serving revision.
Context
The public report gives the number of videos rated for this category but does not expose prompt-level data or a category-specific confidence interval. The methodology's ±2 value is an empirical comparison for the combined index and is expressly not a universal statistical confidence interval; it is not transferred to this category. The exact evaluated Google API model ID and serving revision are not public.
Source Megaton, Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash V-Benchmark v2 report

Recorded measurement details

LMArena Text to Video: LMArena Text to Video (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
1516
Score
1516
Metric
elo-rating
Unit
Elo
Task
lmarena-text-to-video
Task label
LMArena Text to Video
Direction
Higher is better
Source rank
1
Sample
1784
Lower confidence bound
1501
Upper confidence bound
1531
Retrieved at
2026-11-03
Source LMArena
LMArena Image to Video: LMArena Image to Video (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
1488
Score
1488
Metric
elo-rating
Unit
Elo
Task
lmarena-image-to-video
Task label
LMArena Image to Video
Direction
Higher is better
Source rank
2
Sample
3734
Lower confidence bound
1477
Upper confidence bound
1499
Retrieved at
2026-11-03
Source LMArena

Page 1 of 4

What Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash can do

“n/a” means the provider does not state it or we have not sourced it yet. That is not a “no”.

Text to videoyesSource
Image to videoyesSource
Referencesn/a
AudioyesSource
Runs locallynoSource
ExtendyesSource
Start and end framen/a
Max. resolution360p to 4K (24 FPS)Source

Video sample from our test

This video exists as a documented run for the exact model version. Playback is muted.

Motion and physical consistency

This sample tests Anatomy, object consistency, camera tracking, rain, and reflections.

Open video at original sizeOpen source
Prompt and settings

Generate exactly one continuous five-second 16:9 cinematic video. A fictional bicycle courier in a mustard-yellow raincoat rides a red city bicycle from left to right across a rain-wet Hamburg street at blue hour for the entire clip. The camera tracks her smoothly at waist height. Both hands remain visible on the handlebars, the bicycle geometry stays physically correct, and a transparent umbrella fixed to the bicycle moves naturally in the wind. Wet-street reflections and raindrops follow realistic physics. No cuts, no slow motion, no text, no logos, no subtitles, and no audio.

Generated through Gemini API with model gemini-omni-1.1-flash. Archived settings were 16:9, one request, first output, prompt motion-and-physics, duration not controllable (prompt asks for five seconds), native audio (no switch), interaction v1_ChdDUFBtYXFYRUctS192ZElQMzk2MjZRaxIXQ1BQbWFxWEVHLUtfdmRJUDM5NjI2UWs, request {"model":"gemini-omni-1.1-flash","input":"Generate exactly one continuous five-second 16:9 cinematic video. A fictional bicycle courier in a mustard-yellow raincoat rides a red city bicycle from left to right across a rain-wet Hamburg street at blue hour for the entire clip. The camera tracks her smoothly at waist height. Both hands remain visible on the handlebars, the bicycle geometry stays physically correct, and a transparent umbrella fixed to the bicycle moves naturally in the wind. Wet-street reflections and raindrops follow realistic physics. No cuts, no slow motion, no text, no logos, no subtitles, and no audio.","response_format":{"type":"video","aspect_ratio":"16:9","resolution":"720p","delivery":"uri"},"store":true,"background":false,"stream":false}, configured price ceiling $1.06, usage {"total_tokens":29437,"total_input_tokens":118,"input_tokens_by_modality":[{"modality":"text","tokens":118}],"total_cached_tokens":0,"total_output_tokens":28960,"output_tokens_by_modality":[{"modality":"video","tokens":28960}],"total_tool_use_tokens":0,"total_thought_tokens":359,"initial_input_tokens":29396}.

Popularity compared

How often the model is searched for, used and mentioned, compared with every model of its category.

Popularity index

0 to 100, higher is more popular

20 of 98 models

LTX-2.570
MiniMax H366
Muse Video62
Sora 259
Wan 2.1 T2V 14B54
Wan 2.1 T2V 1.3B54
Runway Gen-4.553
Hy-Nomas53
Wan 2.1 I2V 14B53
Veo 3.150
Wan 2.2 TI2V 5B46
FLUX.3 Video45
LTX-2 19B45
Open-Sora 2.044
Wan 2.2 I2V A14B43
Gemini Omni Flash43
SkyReels V2 T2V 14B42
Grok Imagine Video42
Mochi 1 Preview39
Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash33

As of November 2026 · Source: gradually.ai popularity index

Over time

Weekly values from October 18, 2026 to November 5, 2026

Gemini Omni 1.1 FlashVidu Q3 ProVeo 3.1 FastWan 2.7Dreamina Seedance 2.0 720p

Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash compared

Compare with another model

Predecessor and successor

The most popular comparisons

  1. 1FLUX.3 Video vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  2. 2Dreamina Seedance 2.5 720p vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  3. 3Dreamina Seedance 2.0 720p vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  4. 4MiniMax H3 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  5. 5Sora 2 Pro vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  6. 6Sora 2 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  7. 7Veo 3.1 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  8. 8Veo 3.1 Fast vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  9. 9Grok Imagine Video 1.5 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
Show all 93 comparisons
  1. 10Grok Imagine Video vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  2. 11Wan 2.7 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  3. 12Wan 2.6 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  4. 13Runway Gen-4.5 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  5. 14Kling 3.0 Pro vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  6. 15Kling 2.6 Pro vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  7. 16Vidu Q3 Pro vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  8. 17PixVerse V5.6 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  9. 18Hailuo 2.3 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  10. 19LTX-2 19B vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  11. 20Wan 2.2 A14B vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  12. 21HunyuanVideo 1.5 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  13. 22Pika 2.2 vs. Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
  14. 23Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Muse Video
  15. 24Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 3.0
  16. 25Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 3.0 Prime
  17. 26Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. HappyHorse 1.0
  18. 27Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. HappyHorse 1.1
  19. 28Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. PixVerse V6
  20. 29Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. PixVerse V6 Max
  21. 30Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. PixVerse C1
  22. 31Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Seedance 2.0 Fast
  23. 32Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Seedance 2.0 Mini
  24. 33Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Vidu Q4 Preview
  25. 34Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Vidu Q3
  26. 35Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Vidu Q3 Turbo
  27. 36Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Vidu Q3 Pro Fast
  28. 37Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Vidu Q2
  29. 38Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Vidu Q1
  30. 39Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Kling 4.0
  31. 40Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Kling 4.0 Flash
  32. 41Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Kling 3.0 Standard API
  33. 42Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Kling 3.0 Omni
  34. 43Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Kling 3.0 Turbo
  35. 44Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Kling 2.5 Turbo
  36. 45Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Kling Video O1
  37. 46Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. MiniMax H3 Max
  38. 47Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Hailuo 2.3 Fast
  39. 48Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. WAND-Vega Video 1.0 Lite
  40. 49Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Qianfan K3.0 Turbo
  41. 50Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.5 Preview
  42. 51Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.6 I2V Flash
  43. 52Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.6 R2V Flash
  44. 53Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.2 Plus API
  45. 54Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.2 I2V Flash
  46. 55Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.1 Turbo API
  47. 56Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.1 Plus API
  48. 57Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.1 T2V 14B
  49. 58Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.1 I2V 14B
  50. 59Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.1 T2V 1.3B
  51. 60Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.2 TI2V 5B
  52. 61Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Wan 2.2 I2V A14B
  53. 62Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. HunyuanVideo 1.0 T2V
  54. 63Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. HunyuanVideo I2V 1.0
  55. 64Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Step-Video-T2V 30B
  56. 65Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Step-Video-T2V Turbo
  57. 66Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Step-Video-TI2V 30B
  58. 67Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. SkyReels V2 DF 14B
  59. 68Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. SkyReels V2 I2V 14B
  60. 69Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. SkyReels V2 T2V 14B
  61. 70Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. SkyReels V2 DF 1.3B
  62. 71Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. SkyReels V2 I2V 1.3B
  63. 72Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. SkyReels V3 R2V 14B
  64. 73Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. SkyReels V4
  65. 74Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. EasyAnimate V5.1 T2V 7B
  66. 75Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. EasyAnimate V5.1 I2V 7B
  67. 76Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. EasyAnimate V5.1 T2V 12B
  68. 77Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. EasyAnimate V5.1 I2V 12B
  69. 78Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Lumos-1 1B SFT 384p
  70. 79Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Lumos-1 3B SFT 384p
  71. 80Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Open-Sora Plan 1.5.0
  72. 81Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Helios Base 14B
  73. 82Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Helios Distilled 14B
  74. 83Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Ray 3.2
  75. 84Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Pika 2.5
  76. 85Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Pika H3 Flex
  77. 86Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Grok Imagine Video 1.5 Lite
  78. 87Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. LTX-2.5
  79. 88Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Runway Gen-4 Turbo
  80. 89Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Veo 3.1 Lite Preview
  81. 90Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Mochi 1 Preview
  82. 91Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. Open-Sora 2.0
  83. 92Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. CogVideoX1.5-5B T2V
  84. 93Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash vs. CogVideoX1.5-5B I2V

All specifications

Input and output

Context window
1,048,576 tokens
no source
Maximum resolution
360p to 4K (24 FPS)
Source: Maximum resolution
Maximum duration
10 s
Source: Maximum duration
Native audio
Yes
Source: Native audio

Watermarking and provenance

AI watermarking refers to invisible signals embedded in the output. Visible marks and provenance metadata are listed separately. Unknown means there is insufficient evidence for that particular field.

AI watermarking
Subject to limitations. Google describes an invisible SynthID watermark for videos in Gemini Apps. Marking may depend on the product used.
Source 1: AI watermarkingSource 2: AI watermarking
Watermarking technique
SynthID
Source 1: Watermarking techniqueSource 2: Watermarking technique
Visible watermark
In Gemini Apps, a visible mark may appear depending on the setting, country and plan.
Source: Visible watermark
Provenance metadata
Google documents C2PA Content Credentials for content in Gemini Apps, Google Flow and YouTube.
Source: Provenance metadata
Labelling reviewed
Nov 5, 2026
Source 1: Labelling reviewedSource 2: Labelling reviewedSource 3: Labelling reviewed

Licence and access

Weights
Proprietary
Source: Weights
Access
API, Web
Source: Access
Lifecycle
Stable API since August 27, 2026
Source: Lifecycle

API

API model ID
gemini-omni-1.1-flash
Source: API model ID

Further details

Input
Text, images, and videos up to 10 seconds for editing or extension
Source: Input
Video capabilities
Generation, natural-language editing, extension, upscaling, and interpolation
Source: Video capabilities
Tier
Generally available on the paid Gemini API tier, with no free tier
Source: Tier

Prices

Choose a price view
Representative price
$0.10 per second ($0.51 per 5 s clip)Source
720p video price
About $0.10 per second at Standard pricingSource
Standard pricing
$1.50 input per 1M tokens, $17.50 video output per 1M tokensSource

At Google from €4.99 a month (Google AI Plus, with limited credits). Through other providers from €6.83 a month (Poe Basic, with limited points). 32 plans in Germany.

Filter plans
PlanMonthly priceNote
Google AI Plus€4.99developer's own plan, with limited credit
Google Workspace Business Starter€8.10developer's own plan, for teams, per seat
Google Workspace Business Standard€16.20developer's own plan, for teams, per seat
Google AI Pro€21.99developer's own plan, with limited credit
Google Workspace Business Plus€25.30developer's own plan, for teams, per seat
Google AI Ultra 5x€99.99developer's own plan, with limited credit
Google AI Ultra 20x€219.99developer's own plan, with limited credit
Google Workspace Enterprise Plusn/adeveloper's own plan, for enterprises, per seat
Google Workspace Enterprise Standardn/adeveloper's own plan, for enterprises, per seat
Lovable Freefreewith limited credit
Poe Basic€6.83with limited credit
Pika Starter≈ €10.56with limited credit
Lovable Pro€25with limited credit
Leonardo.Ai Team Starter≈ €25.35for teams, per seat
Poe Plus€27.36with limited credit
Pika Creator≈ €36.97with limited credit
Lovable Business€50with limited credit, for teams
Leonardo.Ai Team Growth≈ €50.70for teams, per seat
Mindverse Studio Team€58.31for teams, per seat
Leonardo.Ai Ultimate≈ €63.37
Poe Pro€68.41with limited credit
Higgsfield Plus€70.21with limited credit
Mindverse Studio Pro€70.21per seat
Higgsfield Team€94.01with limited credit, for teams, per seat
Pika Fancy≈ €100.34with limited credit
Poe Advanced€136.84with limited credit
Higgsfield Ultra€153.51with limited credit
Higgsfield Scale€201.11with limited credit, for teams, per seat
Poe Max€342.11with limited credit
Higgsfield Enterprisen/afor enterprises
Lovable Enterprisen/afor enterprises
Pika Enterprisen/afor enterprises

All plans in the AI subscription comparison

Frequently asked questions about Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash

How good is Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash?

Rank 1 of 23 in the text-to-video arena rating. With a start image: rank 2 of 21.

LMArena, as of Sep 22, 2026

Arena ratingtext to video, from user votes · higher is better
Gemini Omni 1.1 FlashRank 1 of 231,516
Gemini Omni Flash1,513
FLUX.3 Video1,493
Grok Imagine Video 1.51,492
Dreamina Seedance 2.0 720p1,479
Dreamina Seedance 2.5 720p1,474
MiniMax H31,460

How much does a video with Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash cost?

About $0.51 for a 5 s clip, $0.10 per second of video. That is fairly cheap.

Price per seconddollars per second of video · lower is better
Hailuo 2.3$0.082
Gemini Omni Flash$0.10
Veo 3.1 Fast$0.10
Gemini Omni 1.1 FlashRank 9 of 19$0.10
Runway Gen-4.5$0.12
Vidu Q3 Pro$0.12
MiniMax H3$0.13

How long can a video with Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash be?

Up to 10 seconds in one go. Resolution: 360p to 4K (24 FPS).

According to Google

Price
$0.10 per second$0.51 per 5 s clip
Longest clip
10s
Resolution
360p to 4K (24 FPS)
Audio
yes, generated natively
Open weights
no

Where can I use Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash?

At Google with a subscription from €4.99 a month. Including other providers that makes 32 plans in Germany.

Subscription comparison, prices in Germany incl. VAT

At Google

9 plans, from €4.99 a month (Google AI Plus).

Through other providers

23 plans from 6 providers, from €6.83 a month (Poe Basic), with limited credits.

Sources and data date

Show all 35 sources

Benchmark sources at a glance

Which independent evaluators tested this model. This is coverage, not a quality ranking.

EvaluatorTest seriesComposite indicesRecorded active measurements
Artificial Analysis005
LMArena002

Without vendor claims and historical or disputed results; those stay labelled in the single values. 7 measurements are not yet assigned to a test series.

TypeEvidence and data date
Research statusResearch date October 16, 2026. 26 source URLs checked. This documents the inspected sources, not an exhaustive inventory of every publication.
Not found in the inspected sources

wiro-video-models-exact-row

Note

The inspected Wiro leaderboard has no exact model-version route. Nearby variants were not transferred.

Not found in the inspected sources

arena-video-edit-exact-row

Note

The inspected Video Edit table has no exact model-version row. T2V and I2V values were not reused.

Not found in the inspected sources

vabench-exact-model-row

Note

VABench has no exact model row. Sora 2 was not transferred to Sora 2 Pro or other models.

Unresolved

vbench-current-public-leaderboard

Note

The current VBench leaderboard is embedded in a dynamic Hugging Face iframe and was not retrievable; current scores remain unresolved.

Not found in the inspected sources

vidbenchmark-exact-row

Note

No exact model id is present in the 2026-08-04 dataset; similarly named variants were not transferred.

Not published

AA output resolution

Note

The AA-Video leaderboard row does not publish the tested output resolution.

Not published

servingRevision

Original wording

The dataset identifies the participant name but not provider API route, served checkpoint revision, quantization, or resolution.

Unresolved

datasetRowCount

Original wording

The pinned README states 21,125 matchup rows, while current Hugging Face viewer metadata reports 22,625. Neither aggregate is used as sampleCount or leaderboard N.

Unresolved

per-model-sample-count

Original wording

The returned row text contains an ambiguous count under headings that include both Responses and Matches. Per-model N is not copied. Aggregate votes and pairwise-match totals are not substituted.

Not published

provider-serving-revision

Original wording

The page names a model label but does not state an exact provider serving revision or checkpoint.

Unresolved

benchmark-update-date

Original wording

The page header says updated 2026-09-03 while the footer says last updated 2026-10-18.

Additional sourceGoogle (retrieved September 26, 2026) · Google Gemini Omni Flash model documentation · Editorial description reviewed October 2, 2026
Additional sourceVideo pricing (retrieved September 26, 2026) · Google Gemini API pricing · Editorial description reviewed October 2, 2026
Additional sourceLifecycle data · Google Gemini API release notes · Editorial description reviewed October 2, 2026
Additional sourceLMArena (retrieved November 3, 2026)12
Additional sourceArtificial Analysis AA-Video-T2V v2.1 (retrieved October 16, 2026; October 17, 2026; October 28, 2026)
Additional sourceArtificial Analysis AA-Video-I2V v1.1 (retrieved October 16, 2026; October 17, 2026; October 28, 2026)
Additional sourcePhysics-IQ Verified GitHub leaderboard (retrieved October 16, 2026)
Additional sourceArtificial Analysis AA-Video-Editing v1.1 (retrieved October 17, 2026; October 28, 2026)
Additional sourceRapidata, image-to-video-physics-human-feedback-benchmark dataset README (retrieved October 17, 2026)
Additional sourceMegaton, Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash V-Benchmark v2 report (retrieved October 17, 2026)
Additional sourceRapidata (retrieved October 18, 2026; October 28, 2026)
Additional sourceArena Video Image-to-Video (retrieved September 21, 2026; October 16, 2026; October 28, 2026)
Additional sourceArena Video Text-to-Video (retrieved September 21, 2026; October 16, 2026; October 28, 2026)
Additional sourceDefinition AI Video Leaderboard (retrieved October 21, 2026; October 28, 2026)
Additional sourceRapidata I2V Physics benchmark (retrieved October 22, 2026; October 28, 2026)
Additional sourceRapidata I2V Realism benchmark (retrieved October 22, 2026; October 28, 2026)
Additional sourceRapidata Relative Camera Movement (retrieved October 28, 2026)
Additional sourceModel metadata (retrieved October 16, 2026)1234
Additional sourceModel metadata (retrieved October 17, 2026)
Additional sourceModel metadata (retrieved October 18, 2026)
Additional sourceModel metadata (retrieved October 28, 2026)
Additional sourceGemini Omni video generation (retrieved November 5, 2026)
Additional sourceGoogle DeepMind Gemini Omni (retrieved November 5, 2026)
Additional sourceGemini Apps watermark settings (retrieved November 5, 2026)
Additional sourceOpenRouter: Popularity index (derived), CC BY 4.0
Additional sourceVercel AI Gateway: Popularity index (derived), CC BY 4.0
Additional sourceOllama: cumulative downloads for the popularity index
Additional sourceReplicate: cumulative runs for the popularity index
Additional sourceGoogle Trending Now: limited feed selection for Germany and the US
Additional sourceCreative Commons Attribution 4.0
Additional sourceGoogle Gemini API model deprecations and lifecycle table (2026-09-19)