Play.ht vs. Murf API

The best way to compare Play.ht vs. Murf API: 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

Play.ht

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

Murf API

Deploy high quality voices for your apps, website and other services at scale.

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 Murf API offer a range of features catering to diverse text-to-speech needs, including voice cloning, multi-lingual support, speed control, and compatibility with phone formats.
However, Play.ht distinguishes itself with per-word timestamps, a feature not available in Murf API, while Murf API offers pitch control, which is absent in Play.ht.
These differences highlight the specialized capabilities of each service, suggesting that the choice between them should be guided by the specific requirements of the user, such as the need for detailed audio editing capabilities or the preference for voice modulation options.

Pricing & Plans

Free

$0/mo

12,500 characters

Creator

$39/mo

250,000 characters

Unlimited

$99/mo

2.5M characters limit

API Subscription

$3000/year

12M characters (per year)

In a pricing comparison between Play.ht and Murf API, Play.ht offers more competitive and flexible pricing plans suitable for a range of usage levels, from free low-usage options to high-usage plans at significantly lower costs.
Murf API provides a straightforward annual plan that may appeal to users with consistent high-volume needs, but at a higher cost compared to Play.ht's offerings.
Overall, Play.ht emerges as the more cost-effective choice for users seeking value across various usage scenarios.

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

3.8 out of 5

Average of 819 ratings from leading review sites.

Murf API generally receives praise for its variety of natural-sounding voices, user-friendly interface, and quick setup, making it a popular choice for voiceover projects. Customers appreciate the diverse voice options and the ability to customize speech patterns. However, there are significant concerns about the pricing model, which many find too expensive and restrictive in terms of voice generation limits. Additionally, there are complaints about customer service and misleading information regarding free trials and subscriptions. Issues with billing practices and refund policies are also frequently mentioned, causing distrust among some users.

Voice quality

User interface

Setup

Voice variety

Customization

Pricing

Customer service

Billing practices

Refund policy

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. Neets.ai

Play.ht vs. IBM Watson

Play.ht vs. Resemble.AI

Play.ht vs. LOVO AI

Play.ht vs. Deepgram Aura

Murf API vs. Unreal Speech

Murf API vs. Amazon Polly

Murf API vs. ElevenLabs

Murf API vs. Google Cloud Text-to-Speech

Murf API vs. Microsoft Azure AI Speech

Murf API vs. OpenAI Text-to-Speech

Murf API vs. Neets.ai

Murf API vs. IBM Watson

Murf API vs. Resemble.AI

Murf API vs. LOVO AI

Murf API vs. Deepgram Aura

Summary

Considering voice quality, features, and pricing, Play.ht and Murf API both offer robust text-to-speech services with unique strengths.
Play.ht stands out for its competitive pricing and specialized features like per-word timestamps, making it a versatile choice for a wide range of users.
Murf API, with its pitch control feature and straightforward high-volume plan, caters well to users with specific voice modulation needs or consistent high-usage demands, despite its higher cost.

Looking for a better alternative to Play.ht & Murf API?

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

Get Started for Free →

Play.ht vs. Murf API

Live Demo

Play.ht

Murf API

Voice Quality

Play.ht Samples

Murf API Samples

Features

Play.ht Features

Murf API Features

Features - Conclusion

Pricing & Plans

Play.ht Pricing

Murf API Pricing

Pricing & Plans - Conclusion

Customer Reviews

Play.ht Reviews

Murf API Reviews

Compare Alternatives

Play.ht Alternatives

Murf API Alternatives

Summary

Looking for a better alternative to Play.ht & Murf API?

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

Recent Posts