API Docs Pricing Studio Blog
Contact Us
Sign In

Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. Play.ht

The best way to compare Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. Play.ht: audio samples, features, plans, pricing, and more.

Get Started for Free →

Live Demo

Try our text-to-speech API. Click a button to generate random text:

Non-Fiction
Fiction
News
Blog
Conversation
0/250
Voice
Format
Normal
Speed
Filesize
0 kb
Text to speech API - Google Cloud Text-to-Speech

Google Cloud Text-to-Speech

Allows developers to create natural-sounding, synthetic human speech as playable audio.
Text to speech API - Play.ht

Play.ht

Transform written content into high-quality, lifelike voiceovers with AI-powered text-to-speech technology.

Voice Quality

Google Cloud Text-to-Speech Samples

Mean Opinion Score
Fiction
3.93
Non-Fiction
3.82
Conversation
3.42

Play.ht Samples

Mean Opinion Score
Fiction
4.17
Non-Fiction
4.17
Conversation
3.48
Mean Opinion Score (MOS) is a numerical measure that represents the perceived quality of audio samples, commonly used in evaluating text-to-speech systems. The score ranges from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating poor quality and 5 signifying excellent quality. These scores are derived from comprehensive, professionally-conducted evaluations, and are anonymized to ensure unbiased results.

Voice Quality - Conclusion

  • Based on the Mean Opinion Scores provided, Play.ht generally offers higher voice quality across fiction, non-fiction, and conversation categories compared to Google Cloud Text-to-Speech.
  • Play.ht achieves a particularly notable edge in fiction and non-fiction voice quality.
  • However, both services show room for improvement in the conversation category, with Play.ht slightly leading.

Features

Google Cloud Text-to-Speech Features

Voice Cloning
Multi-lingual
Per-word Timestamps
Pitch Control
Speed Control
Phone Formats (e.g. pcm_mulaw)

Play.ht Features

Voice Cloning
Multi-lingual
Per-word Timestamps
Pitch Control
Speed Control
Phone Formats (e.g. pcm_mulaw)

Features - Conclusion

  • Both Google Cloud Text-to-Speech and Play.ht offer a range of features catering to developers and content creators looking to convert text into natural-sounding speech, including voice cloning and support for multiple languages.
  • However, Google Cloud Text-to-Speech distinguishes itself with pitch control and a lack of per-word timestamps, whereas Play.ht offers per-word timestamps but does not support pitch control.
  • This suggests that while both services are robust, the choice between them may hinge on specific feature preferences such as the need for pitch adjustment or precise timing control for speech synchronization.

Pricing & Plans

Google Cloud Text-to-Speech Pricing

Free
$0/mo
1M characters
Pay As You Go
$16per
1M characters

Play.ht Pricing

Free
$0/mo
12,500 characters
Creator
$39/mo
250,000 characters
Unlimited
$99/mo
2.5M characters limit

Pricing & Plans - Conclusion

  • Google Cloud Text-to-Speech offers a more cost-effective solution for users with low to moderate text-to-speech needs, thanks to its generous free tier and competitive Pay As You Go plan.
  • For very high-volume users, Play.ht's Unlimited plan presents a competitive option, although Google's offering remains strong for those requiring up to 1,000,000 characters per month.
  • Overall, Google Cloud Text-to-Speech is the more affordable choice for most users, while Play.ht may be better suited for those with exceptionally high usage demands.

Customer Reviews

Google Cloud Text-to-Speech Reviews

4.6 out of 5
Average of 163 ratings from leading review sites.
Customers appreciate Google Cloud Text-to-Speech for its multilingual support, high-quality voices, and ease of integration. It is praised for its ability to handle various languages and accents, making it versatile for different applications. However, users are dissatisfied with its dependency on internet connectivity and find the pricing structure confusing and potentially costly. The lack of offline functionality is a significant drawback for many. Despite these issues, the service is valued for its accessibility features and seamless integration with other Google services.
Multilingual support
Voice quality
Ease of integration
Internet dependency
Pricing transparency
Offline functionality

Play.ht Reviews

4.6 out of 5
Average of 293 ratings from leading review sites.
Play.ht is highly praised for its diverse and realistic voice options, ease of use, and excellent customer support. Users appreciate the ability to create audio content efficiently, especially for multilingual and varied voice needs. However, some users note issues with natural inflection, especially with complex terms, and express concerns about the pricing structure and occasional technical glitches. The platform's continuous updates and addition of new features are well-received, though some desire more control over voice modulation and better integration with certain plugins.
Voice diversity
Ease of use
Customer support
Pricing
Natural inflection
Technical reliability

Compare Alternatives

Google Cloud Text-to-Speech Alternatives

Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. Unreal Speech
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. Amazon Polly
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. ElevenLabs
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. Microsoft Azure AI Speech
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. OpenAI Text-to-Speech
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. Murf API
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. Neets.ai
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. IBM Watson
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. Resemble.AI
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. LOVO AI
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech vs. Deepgram Aura

Play.ht Alternatives

Play.ht vs. Unreal Speech
Play.ht vs. Amazon Polly
Play.ht vs. ElevenLabs
Play.ht vs. Microsoft Azure AI Speech
Play.ht vs. OpenAI Text-to-Speech
Play.ht vs. Murf API
Play.ht vs. Neets.ai
Play.ht vs. IBM Watson
Play.ht vs. Resemble.AI
Play.ht vs. LOVO AI
Play.ht vs. Deepgram Aura

Summary

  • In comparing Google Cloud Text-to-Speech and Play.ht, Play.ht edges out in voice quality, particularly in fiction and non-fiction, while Google Cloud Text-to-Speech offers a more cost-effective pricing structure for a wide range of usage needs.
  • Feature-wise, both platforms cater to a variety of developer and content creator requirements, with specific strengths such as pitch control for Google and per-word timestamps for Play.ht.
  • Ultimately, the choice between the two services may depend on the user's priorities in voice quality, pricing, and specific feature needs.

Looking for a better alternative to Google Cloud Text-to-Speech & Play.ht?

Try Unreal Speech! You get 250,000 free characters every month.

Get Started for Free →
Made with ❤️ in SF
Founder
API Docs Pricing Studio Contact Blog Compare Browse AI Apps Affiliate

Recent Posts

Integrating FastSpeech 2 for Text-to-Speech Synthesis with Fairseq and Hugging Face Exploring the Potential of GPT-SoVITS-Fork for Text-to-Speech Applications Exploring the GPT-SoVITS Kancolle Zuikaku TTS Model: A Comprehensive Guide Exploring Voice Synthesis with ESPnet: A Deep Dive into the kan-bayashi_csmsc_fastspeech Model Introducing OpenVoice: Revolutionizing Text-to-Speech with Instant Voice Cloning and Multilingual Capabilities How to Leverage Twelve Labs API for Effortless YouTube Video Summaries, Chapters, and Highlights
Sign In