Play.ht vs. IBM Watson

The best way to compare Play.ht vs. IBM Watson: 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

Speed

0 s

Filesize

0 kb

Play.ht

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

IBM Watson

Convert text into natural-sounding speech in a variety of languages and voices.

Voice Quality

Mean Opinion Score

Fiction

4.17

Non-Fiction

4.17

Conversation

3.48

Mean Opinion Score

Fiction

N/A

Non-Fiction

N/A

Conversation

N/A

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.

Features

Voice Cloning

Multi-lingual

Per-word Timestamps

Pitch Control

Speed Control

Phone Formats (e.g. pcm_mulaw)

Voice Cloning

Multi-lingual

Per-word Timestamps

Pitch Control

Speed Control

Phone Formats (e.g. pcm_mulaw)

Both Play.ht and IBM Watson offer a robust set of features for text-to-speech services, including voice cloning, multi-lingual support, per-word timestamps, speed control, and support for phone formats.
However, IBM Watson distinguishes itself with pitch control, a feature not available in Play.ht.
This comparison highlights the importance of specific features like pitch control for users who require more nuanced voice modulation capabilities in their text-to-speech applications.

Pricing & Plans

Free

$0/mo

12,500 characters

Creator

$39/mo

250,000 characters

Unlimited

$99/mo

2.5M characters limit

Free

$0/mo

10,000 characters

Standard

$20per

1M characters

In a comparison of Play.ht and IBM Watson text-to-speech services based solely on pricing, IBM Watson emerges as the more cost-effective option for users with moderate needs due to its lower-priced Standard Plan.
However, for users with minimal requirements, Play.ht offers a slightly better free plan with more characters available at no cost.
For those with very high usage demands, Play.ht's Unlimited Plan provides a significantly higher character limit, making it a preferable choice despite its higher price point.

Customer 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

4.1 out of 5

Average of 44 ratings from leading review sites.

Customers appreciate IBM Watson Text to Speech for its ease of integration, speed, and support for multiple languages, making it versatile for various applications like education, customer service, and accessibility for the disabled. The ability to customize voice and tone is highly valued. However, some users note issues with pronunciation accuracy, limited language options, and occasional software glitches. The pricing is also considered high for small businesses or individual users.

Ease of integration

Speed

Language support

Customization

Pronunciation accuracy

Software reliability

Pricing

Language diversity

Compare Alternatives

Play.ht vs. Unreal Speech

Play.ht vs. Amazon Polly

Play.ht vs. ElevenLabs

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

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. Resemble.AI

Play.ht vs. LOVO AI

Play.ht vs. Deepgram Aura

IBM Watson vs. Unreal Speech

IBM Watson vs. Amazon Polly

IBM Watson vs. ElevenLabs

IBM Watson vs. Google Cloud Text-to-Speech

IBM Watson vs. Microsoft Azure AI Speech

IBM Watson vs. OpenAI Text-to-Speech

IBM Watson vs. Murf API

IBM Watson vs. Neets.ai

IBM Watson vs. Resemble.AI

IBM Watson vs. LOVO AI

IBM Watson vs. Deepgram Aura

Summary

In comparing Play.ht and IBM Watson text-to-speech services, both platforms offer high-quality, AI-powered voiceovers with a range of features suitable for various needs.
While Play.ht provides slightly better voice quality scores and a more generous free plan, IBM Watson stands out for its cost-effectiveness in the standard plan and unique pitch control feature.
Ultimately, the choice between Play.ht and IBM Watson depends on the user's specific requirements, including voice quality preferences, budget constraints, and the need for advanced features like pitch modulation.

Looking for a better alternative to Play.ht & IBM Watson?

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

Get Started for Free →

Play.ht vs. IBM Watson

Live Demo

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

Play.ht

IBM Watson

Voice Quality

Play.ht Samples

IBM Watson Samples

Features

Play.ht Features

IBM Watson Features

Features - Conclusion

Pricing & Plans

Play.ht Pricing

IBM Watson Pricing

Pricing & Plans - Conclusion

Customer Reviews

Play.ht Reviews

IBM Watson Reviews

Compare Alternatives

Play.ht Alternatives

IBM Watson Alternatives

Summary

Looking for a better alternative to Play.ht & IBM Watson?

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

Recent Posts