Suno vs Udio: The AI Music Showdown
Suno:
Pros:
Generates better, lengthier, and more coherent content.
Easier to navigate and remember tracks.
Quick mash-up of tracks that sound decent1.
Cons:
Produces a lot of trash content.
Extending tracks can be problematic.
Prohibitively expensive for credit top-ups1.
Udio:
Pros:
Produces cleaner sounding audio.
Capable of more complex sound concepts.
Easier to hallucinate vocals with non-word characters1.
Cons:
Takes longer to render.
Short original clip length.
Extending songs is wildly unreliable1.
Performance on Specific Prompts:
A 12 bar country song about finding a cat was created faster and with higher quality by Udio, with a hassle factor of 3/10 and an overall score of 9/10. Suno, while still quick, lost some of its sparkle in the latest version 2.
Overall Experience:
Both platforms are still in the experimental stage and have not worked out all the kinks yet.
Suno is easier for quick navigation and track management.
Udio suffers from a lack of a thumbs-down option and occasionally erratic interface behavior1.
Conclusion: Both Suno and Udio have their strengths and weaknesses. Suno seems to be more user-friendly and better for generating longer content quickly, while Udio excels in audio cleanliness and complexity. However, both services struggle with extending tracks and producing consistent quality. Users may choose between them based on their specific needs and preferences for interface, speed, and sound quality.
This review is a synthesis of user experiences and expert analysis. For those interested in exploring AI music generation, both Suno and Udio offer unique features worth trying.
