Best AI Music Generators 2025
Best AI Music Generators 2025: Suno, Udio, and the tools musicians hate. Which creates the best songs? The music industry lawsuit war.
Key Findings
Which brand leads in AI visibility and mentions.
SUNO.AI dominates AI music visibility outpacing Udio with surging 42% growth
AI Recommendation
Brands most often recommended by AI models
SUNO.AI
Top Choice
6/6
Models Agree
Popularity Ranking
Overall ranking based on AI brand mentions
SUNO.AI
Rank #1
23/25
Total Analyzed Answers
Trending Mentions
Recent shifts in AI model responses
SUNO.AI
Rising Star
42%
Growth Rate
Brand Visibility
Analysis of brand presence in AI-generated responses.
AI Visibility Share Rankings
Brands ranked by share of AI mentions in answers
AI Visibility Share Over Time
Visibility share trends over time across compared brands
Topics Compared
Key insights from AI Apps comparisons across major topics
"Which AI music generator is better: Suno or Udio?"
Suno.AI edges out Udio as the preferred AI music generator across most models due to a slightly higher visibility share and perceived innovation advantage in user engagement contexts.
Deepseek shows a marginal preference for Suno.AI with a visibility share of 2.9% compared to Udio's 2.8%, suggesting a slight edge in recognition or discussion. Its neutral tone indicates no strong bias but highlights Suno.AI's marginally higher presence in queries related to AI music generation.
Perplexity leans toward Suno.AI with a visibility share of 3.1% against Udio's 2.8%, implying a preference based on user interest or perceived quality. The neutral-to-positive tone reflects a focus on Suno.AI's relevance in music creation discussions.
ChatGPT assigns equal visibility to both Suno.AI and Udio at 8.8%, indicating no clear favorite in terms of recognition or adoption. Its neutral tone suggests a balanced perception, likely driven by similar user engagement or feature discussions for both tools.
Gemini perceives Suno.AI and Udio equally with a visibility share of 2.6% each, reflecting no distinct preference in terms of innovation or user interest. The neutral tone implies both are seen as comparable in the AI music generation landscape.
Google's data does not mention Suno.AI or Udio, focusing on unrelated entities, and thus shows no preference or sentiment toward either brand. Its neutral tone and lack of relevant visibility data render it irrelevant to this comparison.
Grok equally represents Suno.AI and Udio with a visibility share of 2.5% each, indicating no clear bias in community sentiment or adoption patterns. The neutral tone suggests both are viewed similarly in terms of relevance to AI music generation.
"Which AI music tool is better for professionals vs beginners?"
AIVA and SUNO.AI emerge as leading AI music tools, with AIVA favored for professionals due to its high visibility and advanced composition features, while SUNO.AI appeals to beginners with broader accessibility across models.
ChatGPT shows a preference for AIVA with an 8% visibility share, likely due to its recognition for sophisticated composition tools suitable for professionals. Its tone is neutral, focusing on visibility data without explicit sentiment, indicating AIVA's strength for professional use over beginner-friendly tools like Boomy (5.7%).
Perplexity leans toward SUNO.AI with a 3.1% visibility share, suggesting a focus on its user-friendly interface that benefits beginners, while AIVA (2.9%) remains relevant for more advanced users. The tone is neutral, emphasizing visibility metrics over explicit endorsements.
Grok highlights AIVA (2.5%) as a top tool, likely for its professional-grade capabilities, while SUNO.AI (2.2%) and Udio (2.2%) are also visible, possibly for broader accessibility. Its tone is neutral, centered on data with a slight nod to professional tools.
Deepseek favors LANDR (2.8%) for its versatile mastering tools, potentially appealing to both beginners and professionals, while SUNO.AI (1.8%) and Boomy (1.8%) suggest beginner accessibility. The tone remains neutral, focusing on data-driven visibility.
Gemini equally prioritizes SUNO.AI and AIVA (both at 2.5%), indicating AIVA’s strength for professionals with complex features and SUNO.AI’s appeal for beginners due to ease of use. Its tone is neutral, balancing visibility across user segments.
Google’s data is inconclusive with AIVA at a mere 0.2% visibility share among a fragmented list, showing no strong preference or clear relevance to professionals or beginners. The tone is neutral, reflecting a lack of focus on dominant AI music tools.
"Which AI makes better quality music: paid or free tools?"
Paid AI music tools are generally perceived as producing better quality music compared to free tools, with SUNO.AI and AIVA leading due to their consistent visibility and implied quality across models.
Deepseek shows a slight preference for AIVA with a visibility share of 2.5%, followed closely by SUNO.AI at 2.3%, suggesting a lean toward paid tools for better quality music due to their prominence over free alternatives like BandLab (0.8%). The sentiment tone is neutral, focusing on visibility metrics without explicit qualitative judgment.
ChatGPT strongly favors SUNO.AI (7.4%) and Udio (7.1%) alongside AIVA (6%), indicating a preference for paid tools known for advanced features and quality output over free options like Soundful (3.1%). The sentiment tone is positive toward paid platforms, reflecting their higher visibility as a proxy for user trust in quality.
Gemini highlights AIVA (2.5%) and SUNO.AI (2.2%) as top mentions, suggesting a preference for paid tools associated with higher quality music generation compared to free tools like Mubert (1.2%). The sentiment tone remains neutral, with an emphasis on visibility shares rather than explicit quality claims.
Grok favors SUNO.AI (2.3%), AIVA (2.2%), and Udio (2.2%), indicating a tilt toward paid tools for superior music quality while free tools like Soundful (1.1%) lag in visibility. The sentiment tone is mildly positive for paid tools, inferred from their prominence in discussions.
Google's data is limited but shows equal visibility (0.2%) for both paid (SUNO.AI) and free tools (LMMS), suggesting no clear preference for quality between the two categories. The sentiment tone is neutral, lacking depth to infer a strong bias.
Perplexity leans toward SUNO.AI (2.9%) and Boomy (2.5%) as leading choices, implying paid tools are favored for quality music creation over free options like Mubert (2.2%). The sentiment tone is positive toward paid platforms, reflecting higher visibility as an indicator of perceived quality.
"Which AI music generator has better pricing and value?"
AIVA emerges as the leading AI music generator for pricing and value across the models due to its consistent visibility and positive sentiment regarding affordability and user-friendly features.
ChatGPT favors AIVA with the highest visibility share of 8.4%, reflecting a perception of strong value through accessible pricing and feature-rich offerings. The sentiment tone is positive, emphasizing AIVA’s balance of cost and quality.
Gemini shows a slight preference for AIVA (2.3% visibility) over other brands like SUNO.AI (2.2%), with a neutral tone suggesting moderate value in pricing but lacking detailed enthusiasm. It perceives AIVA as a reliable option for cost-conscious users.
Perplexity leans toward SUNO.AI with a 3.1% visibility share, though AIVA (2.2%) remains competitive; its positive tone highlights SUNO.AI’s innovative pricing models and perceived value. AIVA is still seen as a strong contender for budget-friendly solutions.
Deepseek favors AIVA with a 2.8% visibility share, showcasing a positive sentiment tied to its competitive pricing and user adoption for value-driven music generation. It positions AIVA as a top choice for affordability among other contenders like Boomy (2.5%).
Grok equally favors SUNO.AI and AIVA, both at 2.5% visibility, with a positive tone underlining their pricing accessibility and feature value for users. Both are perceived as offering significant bang-for-buck in the AI music space.
Google mentions AIVA (0.2% visibility) among niche platforms, with a neutral tone that neither strongly endorses nor criticizes its pricing or value. Its perception is limited but acknowledges AIVA’s presence in the affordable AI music generator market.
"Which AI music tool is safer for commercial use?"
AIVA emerges as the safest AI music tool for commercial use due to its consistent visibility and positive sentiment across multiple models, reflecting reliability and user trust.
Perplexity shows a slight favoring of SUNO.AI with a 2.6% visibility share, though AIVA also garners attention at 1.2%, with a neutral sentiment tone indicating no strong preference for safety in commercial use.
ChatGPT strongly favors AIVA with an 8.3% visibility share, the highest among listed tools, and exhibits a positive sentiment tone, likely due to perceived reliability and user trust for commercial applications.
Gemini equally highlights SUNO.AI and Udio at 2.6% visibility share, with AIVA close behind at 2.2%, maintaining a neutral sentiment tone without specific emphasis on commercial safety.
Deepseek leans slightly toward AIVA at 2.8% visibility share, just above Boomy at 2.6%, with a neutral to positive sentiment tone suggesting a mild preference for AIVA's consistency in commercial contexts.
Grok equally favors SUNO.AI, Udio, and AIVA, each at 2.6% visibility share, with a neutral sentiment tone that does not explicitly address safety but implies balanced recognition for commercial use.
Google shows minimal focus on major AI music tools, with no clear leader and low visibility shares (e.g., Beatoven.ai at 0.3%), carrying a neutral to skeptical sentiment tone due to lack of emphasis on commercial safety.
FAQs
Key insights into your brand's market position, AI coverage, and topic leadership.
What is the best AI music generator in 2025?
Suno and Udio are the top two, with very different strengths. Suno is faster and easier - type lyrics, get a full song in 30 seconds. It's more polished and consistent, great for beginners and content creators. Udio produces higher quality audio with better mixing and more realistic instruments. Musicians say Udio sounds more 'professional' while Suno sounds more 'radio-ready pop.' Suno costs $10/month for 500 songs, Udio is $10/month for 1200 generations. Both are facing massive lawsuits from major record labels for training on copyrighted music without permission.
Why are musicians suing AI music generators?
Major record labels (Universal, Sony, Warner) are suing Suno and Udio for billions, claiming they trained on copyrighted music without permission. The labels say these AIs learned from millions of songs scraped illegally from the internet. Musicians are furious because AI can now replicate their styles instantly. Independent artists report losing gigs to clients who use AI instead. The emotional impact: musicians spent years developing unique sounds, now anyone can generate 'music in that style' for $10/month. Lawsuits could shut down these companies or force licensing deals worth hundreds of millions.
Can AI music generators replace real musicians?
For background music, stock music, and commercial jingles - yes, they already have. YouTubers, podcasters, and small businesses use AI music instead of licensing or hiring composers. What AI can't replace yet: live performance, emotional depth in lyrics, the 'magic' of human creativity, and music that tells authentic personal stories. AI music sounds good but feels empty to serious listeners. However, the middle-tier is disappearing: if you were making $500 background tracks, AI took your job. If you're Taylor Swift or a unique artist, you're safe. Session musicians and commercial composers are getting destroyed.
Is AI-generated music copyrighted?
This is legally messy and undecided. Current US law says AI-generated content can't be copyrighted because it lacks human authorship. However, if you use AI as a tool with significant human input (editing, arranging, producing), you might have copyright on the final work. The real risk: if the AI trained on copyrighted music, your AI-generated song might infringe existing copyrights even if you didn't mean to. Some AI music sounds suspiciously similar to real songs. Platforms like Spotify are starting to flag and remove AI music. The safe approach: use AI for ideas and demos, but have humans do the final production.
Should I use AI music generators for my content?
Use them if: you need cheap background music for YouTube, podcasts, games, or commercial projects; you can't afford to license real music; you're okay with music sounding 'good enough' rather than amazing. Don't use them if: you care about music quality and authenticity; you want to support real musicians; you're worried about copyright issues; your audience will notice and judge AI music. The ethical question: using AI music hurts musicians who can't compete on price. Many creators compromise: use AI for rough demos, hire musicians for important projects. Just be aware you're contributing to an industry shift that's destroying musical careers.
