verifier.org

Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion) alternatives

7 tools we tested head to head against Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion), ranked — and what each one actually does differently.

last reviewed 29 jul 2026 · from our best 8 ai music generation models ·list curated by Onur Ozcanxin

first — what you'd be leaving

Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion) ranks #7 of 8 in our ai music models testing. changed name and owner twice in a year, and its own terms page returns 403..

64/100

google's infrastructure and synthid watermarking behind a product that has been rebranded twice and whose rights documentation we could not open.

why people look for an alternative
  • product terms page returns 403 — rights unverifiable
  • renamed and re-owned twice in twelve months
  • no readable price list
  • commercial use and monetisation terms unconfirmed

stay with Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion) if synthid watermarking for provenance, unique here is the thing you care about most — nothing below beats it on that.

the short version
best alternativeEleven Musicanyone putting generated music into something they sell, who would rather not follow a court case.91/100best free optionACE-Step 1.5developers who want music generation inside their own product without a vendor in the middle.88/100
advertisement
  1. 1

    Eleven Music

    #1 in ai music models · the only one that licensed its training data before launching instead of after being sued.

    91/100

    verdictthe cleanest legal position in the category by a wide margin, and you retain rights to what you make — the catch is what 'commercial use' excludes.

    Eleven Music vs Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)
     Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)Eleven Music
    pricefree with a google account$6/mo
    free tieryesyes
    pricenot readable$6/mo for commercial
    who owns outputuser, per general google termsyou retain rights
    free tier commercialunverifiednot permitted
    litigationnone against this productnone against the product
    stemsunconfirmedunconfirmed

    switch foranyone putting generated music into something they sell, who would rather not follow a court case.

    pros
    • +trained on licensed data with merlin and kobalt deals signed pre-launch
    • +no copyright litigation against the product
    • +you retain rights, not stated to lapse on cancellation
    • +vocals via a curated library or your own reference
    cons
    • free tier is non-commercial only
    • self-serve licence excludes film, tv and studio games
    • elevenlabs takes a perpetual licence to your output for training
    • music consumes 900 credits per minute from a shared pool
  2. 2

    ACE-Step 1.5

    #2 in ai music models · mit-licensed, self-hosted, vocals in fifty languages, and a full song in under ten seconds on a 3090.

    88/100

    verdictthe most permissive licence in the category and the only one you can audit line by line — with no vendor to hold responsible for anything.

    ACE-Step 1.5 vs Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)
     Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)ACE-Step 1.5
    pricefree with a google accountfree
    free tieryesyes
    pricenot readablefree (self-hosted)
    who owns outputuser, per general google termsunaddressed — mit covers weights
    free tier commercialunverifiedpermitted
    litigationnone against this productnone identified
    stemsunconfirmedunconfirmed

    switch fordevelopers who want music generation inside their own product without a vendor in the middle.

    pros
    • +plain mit — no revenue cap, no attribution, no restrictions
    • +vocals and lyrics in 50+ languages
    • +under 10 seconds per song on a consumer gpu
    • +10 seconds to 10 minutes per generation
    cons
    • no terms of service, so output ownership is unaddressed
    • training data undisclosed
    • no vendor support, uptime or moderation
    • benchmark claim is the maintainers' own
  3. 3

    Udio

    #3 in ai music models · two of the three majors have settled and signed deals — the lowest legal risk of the two big generators.

    82/100

    verdictthe settlements are the product here — universal and warner are now partners rather than plaintiffs — and udio's own pages are the hardest to read in the category.

    Udio vs Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)
     Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)Udio
    pricefree with a google accountunverified
    free tieryesyes
    pricenot readablenot readable
    who owns outputuser, per general google termsuser, per help centre
    free tier commercialunverifiedpermitted, with credit
    litigationnone against this productumg + warner settled; sony live
    stemsunconfirmedunconfirmed

    switch forpeople who want suno-class output with meaningfully less unresolved litigation attached.

    pros
    • +universal and warner settled and signed licensing deals
    • +commercial use permitted on the free tier with attribution
    • +help centre states users own the output
    • +reported royalty and audit terms give the settlements substance
    cons
    • pricing and terms pages unreadable without javascript
    • sony litigation still live, ruling slipped to 2027
    • rights after cancellation unconfirmed
    • stem export and track length unconfirmed
    advertisement
  4. 4

    Suno

    #4 in ai music models · the best product in the category, assigning you rights it declines to promise exist.

    80/100

    verdictstill the most polished output and the largest ecosystem — attached to the weakest ownership language and two majors who haven't settled.

    Suno vs Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)
     Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)Suno
    pricefree with a google account$8/mo
    free tieryesyes
    pricenot readable$8/mo
    who owns outputuser, per general google termsassigned, with no copyright warranty
    free tier commercialunverifiednot permitted
    litigationnone against this productumg + sony live; warner settled
    stemsunconfirmedpro and premier

    switch formaking finished vocal songs quickly, if you are comfortable with an unresolved fair-use question.

    pros
    • +fastest, most polished full songs with vocals
    • +cheapest paid commercial tier at $8/mo
    • +stem separation on pro, advanced splits on premier
    • +largest user ecosystem in the category
    cons
    • terms disclaim any warranty that copyright vests in the output
    • universal and sony litigation still live
    • free tier is non-commercial with mandatory attribution
    • training data undisclosed
  5. 5

    Stable Audio

    #5 in ai music models · an open-weight model with a licence you can audit, attached to a hosted product whose terms you can't read.

    74/100

    verdictthe only vendor here publishing a real open-weight licence for music — and the only one where the hosted product's own terms were completely unreadable.

    Stable Audio vs Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)
     Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)Stable Audio
    pricefree with a google accountfree under $1m revenue
    free tieryesyes
    pricenot readablefree under $1m revenue
    who owns outputuser, per general google termsuser, per community licence
    free tier commercialunverifiedpermitted under threshold
    litigationnone against this productindividual suit, jan 2026
    stemsunconfirmedunconfirmed

    switch fordevelopers under the revenue threshold who want weights they can inspect and self-host.

    pros
    • +genuine open-weight licence you can read and self-audit
    • +free commercial use below $1m annual revenue
    • +no major-label litigation identified
    • +self-hostable rather than dependent on a service
    cons
    • $1m revenue cliff forces an enterprise negotiation
    • hosted product's pricing and terms entirely unreadable
    • 'powered by stability ai' attribution required
    • a training-data lawsuit from an individual musician is live
  6. 6

    Mureka

    #6 in ai music models · cheap and prolific — and on the free tier, mureka owns everything you make.

    68/100

    verdictthe most output per dollar here, from a vendor being sued over its training data, whose free tier hands the copyright to itself.

    Mureka vs Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)
     Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)Mureka
    pricefree with a google account$8/mo
    free tieryesyes
    pricenot readable$8/mo
    who owns outputuser, per general google termsmureka on free, you on paid
    free tier commercialunverifiednot permitted
    litigationnone against this productsued dec 2025, pending
    stemsunconfirmedpro tier only

    switch forhigh-volume paid use where cost per track matters more than provenance.

    pros
    • +400 songs a month at $8, 1,600 at $24
    • +stems, wav and instrumental export on pro
    • +voice cloning for commercial use on pro
    • +clear ownership transfer on paid tiers
    cons
    • free tier output is owned by mureka, non-commercial only
    • active us lawsuit filed december 2025, unsettled
    • training data undisclosed
    • rights after cancellation not addressed in the terms
  7. 7

    Beatoven.ai

    #8 in ai music models · keeps the copyright in the track you generated, and forbids you from releasing it as a song.

    58/100

    verdicthonest and clearly written about being a sync-licensing service rather than a music generator you own the output of — which is also why it ranks last.

    Beatoven.ai vs Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)
     Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion)Beatoven.ai
    pricefree with a google accountunverified
    free tieryesno
    pricenot readablenot readable
    who owns outputuser, per general google termsbeatoven, always
    free tier commercialunverifiedsync-only, all tiers
    litigationnone against this productnone identified
    stemsunconfirmedreferenced, tier unconfirmed

    switch forbackground music inside your own video, podcast or game, where a sync licence is all you need.

    pros
    • +clear, well-drafted sync-licensing terms
    • +perpetual licence per download, surviving cancellation
    • +no royalties owed on qualifying use
    • +no litigation identified
    cons
    • beatoven retains the copyright in your generated track
    • distributing the track to spotify or apple music is prohibited
    • pricing page returns 404 — no verifiable price
    • training data undisclosed

how these were compared

every tool on this page went through the same test as Google Flow Music (formerly Riffusion) — same tasks, same order, scored the same way. the comparison tables are the figures from that testing, not vendor spec sheets.

the ai music models test in full →
was this useful?