IBM Watson vs. Play.ht

The best way to compare IBM Watson vs. Play.ht: audio samples, features, plans, pricing, and more.

Get Started for Free →

Live Demo

Non-Fiction

Fiction

News

Blog

Conversation

0/250

Speed

0 s

Filesize

0 kb

IBM Watson

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

Play.ht

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

Voice Quality

Mean Opinion Score

Fiction

N/A

Non-Fiction

N/A

Conversation

N/A

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.

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 IBM Watson and Play.ht offer a range of features that cater to various text-to-speech needs, including voice cloning, multi-lingual support, per-word timestamps, and support for phone formats.
However, IBM Watson distinguishes itself with pitch control, a feature not available in Play.ht, potentially offering a more customizable listening experience.
On the other hand, both platforms provide speed control, ensuring users can adjust the playback speed to their preference.

Pricing & Plans

Free

$0/mo

10,000 characters

Standard

$20per

1M characters

Free

$0/mo

12,500 characters

Creator

$39/mo

250,000 characters

Unlimited

$99/mo

2.5M characters limit

In a pricing comparison between IBM Watson and Play.ht, IBM Watson emerges as the more cost-effective option for users with high-volume text-to-speech needs, offering the lowest cost at its Standard Plan level.
While Play.ht provides more flexibility with its Free, Creator, and Unlimited Plans, its cost is significantly higher, especially for those on the Creator Plan.
For those prioritizing budget over specific features, IBM Watson's straightforward and economical pricing structure makes it a compelling choice.

Customer Reviews

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

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

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

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

Summary

In comparing IBM Watson and Play.ht for text-to-speech services, IBM Watson stands out for its cost-effectiveness and additional feature of pitch control, making it a suitable choice for users with high-volume needs and a desire for customizable voice modulation.
Play.ht, however, offers slightly higher voice quality ratings across fiction, non-fiction, and conversation categories, alongside a more flexible pricing structure with its Free, Creator, and Unlimited Plans.
Ultimately, the choice between the two depends on the user's specific priorities, whether they lean towards budget, voice quality, or the need for specific features like pitch control and multi-lingual support.

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

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

Get Started for Free →

IBM Watson vs. Play.ht

Live Demo

IBM Watson

Play.ht

Voice Quality

IBM Watson Samples

Play.ht Samples

Features

IBM Watson Features

Play.ht Features

Features - Conclusion

Pricing & Plans

IBM Watson Pricing

Play.ht Pricing

Pricing & Plans - Conclusion

Customer Reviews

IBM Watson Reviews

Play.ht Reviews

Compare Alternatives

IBM Watson Alternatives

Play.ht Alternatives

Summary

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

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

Recent Posts