OmniHuman 2.0
OmniHuman 2.0 talking avatar turns one portrait and an audio file into a 720p clip of that person speaking or singing it. The clip is as long as your audio, from 4 to 300 seconds.
View model details →View sample outputs →Model comparisons
OmniHuman 2.0 vs Talking Avatar
OmniHuman 2.0 or Talking Avatar, tier by tier: matched prices, request fields, limits and the content policy measured on each.
Talking Avatar
Talking Avatar turns one portrait and a 3 to 60 second voice recording into a lip-synced MP4 of that person speaking. Mouth, head movement and blinks follow the audio, and an optional mask picks the speaker in a group photo.
View model details →View sample outputs →Compare
The short answer
Start with the input you have, the result you want and your budget. These are the differences that affect that choice.
- These tools produce different results. Choose the operation you need first; a lower price does not make one a substitute for the other.
These tools produce different results. Choose the operation you need first; a lower price does not make one a substitute for the other.
Current price
Price at the same setting
A start price answers a different question than the one you have. These are the tiers both models publish, matched setting for setting, in US dollars per billed unit with no conversion step in between.
These two bill on different tiers, so there is no row to line up. Each one's own published tiers are listed here instead.
OmniHuman 2.0: $0.108 / output seconds
Talking Avatar: $0.018 / output seconds
About this comparison
Controls and limits
Every row here is read from the JSON Schema the endpoint validates against, so it matches what the API will really accept rather than a feature list written by hand.
Swipe horizontally to compare all fields.
| Controls and limits | OmniHuman 2.0 | Talking Avatar |
|---|---|---|
| Supported tasks | talking-avatar | talking-avatar |
| Seed | No | Yes |
| Execution | Submit, then poll or take the callback | Submit, then poll or take the callback |
| Request timeout | 60 minutes | 60 minutes |
| Availability | Live | Live |
Do low-filter models allow every request?
Content policy, side by side
Two separate facts sit behind these labels. The first is what we do, which is nothing: no platform content filter, and no maturity flag to set on a request. The second is what each model does on its own, and that is the only part that varies between these two.
OmniHuman 2.0
Filtered
This model refuses requests beyond its own limits outright. Measured, not assumed — models we have not measured carry no label at all.
Use these content labels to shortlist models, then open each model page for available examples and content-test details.
The label never changes your obligations. Age, consent, real-person likeness and the law where you operate stay with you, and SpicyAPI does not inspect each request.
Can I swap the model ID without changing the request body?
Request body, field by field
The task lifecycle is shared; the body is not. Each endpoint publishes its own JSON Schema and the API validates against that, so this is the list to reconcile before a switch.
- 3 fields appear in both request bodies under the same names. audio_url, image_url, prompt
- OmniHuman 2.0 accepts no field the other one lacks.
- Only Talking Avatar accepts: mask_url, seed.
- OmniHuman 2.0 requires audio_url, image_url.
- Talking Avatar requires audio_url, image_url.
- Both reject unknown fields outright, so a parameter left over from the other model comes back as a validation error instead of being quietly ignored.
Compare
Moving from one to the other
The model identifiers are bytedance/omnihuman-2.0/talking-avatar and spicyapi/talking-avatar-v1/talking-avatar, and both go in the same field of the same request.
Both run the same way: submit the task, then poll it or take the callback. Queueing and retry logic carry over unchanged.
Both use the same submit-and-track flow, but their required inputs may differ. Check each model page before switching.
One key, one balance, one set of spend caps. Both bill to the same account in US dollars, and the per-key daily, monthly and lifetime limits apply to whichever one you call.
Questions developers ask
Which is cheaper, OmniHuman 2.0 or Talking Avatar?
Which is cheaper, OmniHuman 2.0 or Talking Avatar?
These tools produce different results. Choose the operation you need first; a lower price does not make one a substitute for the other. Prices may change; check the estimate shown for your actual settings before submitting.
How long can a single request run?
OmniHuman 2.0 allows 60 minutes per task and Talking Avatar allows 60. Those are ceilings rather than typical times — most requests finish far sooner — but they are what your own client timeout has to survive.
Prices and capabilities shown here come from the current public model catalogue. Check each model page for its latest inputs and examples.
Related comparisons