| Signal | LTX-Video 2 | Delta | Pika 2.0 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 0 | -- | |
Pricing | 100 | -- | |
Context window size | 0 | -- | |
Recency | 45 | +9 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 1 wins | of 5 | 0 wins |
Score History
14.3
current score
LTX-Video 2
right now
12.1
current score
Lightricks
Pika
| Metric | LTX-Video 2 | Pika 2.0 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 14 | 12 | LTX-Video 2 |
| Rank | #2 | #5 | LTX-Video 2 |
| Quality Rank | #2 | #5 | LTX-Video 2 |
| Adoption Rank | #2 | #5 | LTX-Video 2 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | -- | -- | -- |
| Pricing | Free | Free | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 0 | 0 | LTX-Video 2 |
| Pricing | 100 | 100 | LTX-Video 2 |
| Context window size | 0 | 0 | LTX-Video 2 |
| Recency | 45 | 37 | LTX-Video 2 |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 20 | LTX-Video 2 |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 14/100 (rank #2), placing it in the top 100% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 12/100 (rank #5), placing it in the top 99% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 2-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. LTX-Video 2 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (0K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (14/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
LTX-Video 2 and Pika 2.0 are extremely close in overall performance (only 2.200000000000001 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
LTX-Video 2
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
LTX-Video 2
0% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
LTX-Video 2
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
LTX-Video 2
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
LTX-Video 2
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Lightricks
| Capability | LTX-Video 2 | Pika 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Lightricks
Pika
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | LTX-Video 2 | Pika 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | -- | -- |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | -- |
| Open Source | Yes | No |
| Created | Jan 15, 2025 | Nov 27, 2024 |
The ranking discrepancy likely reflects factors beyond raw performance scores - Pika 2.0's closed-source nature may indicate more refined production features or better output consistency that benchmarks don't capture. With both models scoring identically low at 10/100 in a field of 10 video generation models, the ranking difference suggests Pika has advantages in real-world usage patterns or quality metrics not reflected in standardized scoring.
LTX-Video 2's open-source status is its primary differentiator, allowing for self-hosting and customization despite the 0-token context limitation both models share. While neither model charges for usage ($0/M input and output), open-source access enables fine-tuning and integration flexibility that could offset its lower #9 ranking for teams needing specific video generation workflows.
The 10/100 scores place both models in the bottom tier of video generation, suggesting they're better suited for experimentation than production workloads. Pika 2.0's #4 ranking versus LTX-Video 2's #9 position indicates Pika may handle basic use cases more reliably, but with scores this low, teams should expect significant limitations compared to higher-ranked alternatives.
The ranking gap despite identical scores (10/100) and capabilities suggests Pika 2.0 delivers more consistent or aesthetically pleasing results within the same technical constraints. With both models showing 0-token context windows and max outputs, Pika's higher rank likely reflects better prompt adherence or video quality metrics that aren't captured in capability lists but matter significantly in practical usage.
Both models offer completely free usage at $0/M input/output, making the "FREE tier" designation for LTX-Video 2 redundant rather than advantageous. The real consideration is whether LTX-Video 2's open-source nature justifies accepting its #9 ranking versus Pika's #4 position - a significant gap when both score only 10/100 in overall performance.