Two days against one before the file is gone
One page states that generated videos are stored on the server for two days and then removed. The other states that a video URL valid for twenty-four hours is returned. They are the two retention statements in this register, and the other thirteen rows say nothing. As of 2026-09-22.
| What the pages state | Google Veo | Wan 3.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Window | Two days | Twenty-four hours |
| Form of the statement | Stored, then removed | A URL with an expiry |
| Cost of missing it | Re-generation under tier conditions | Re-generation, unconditioned |
Inclusion rule. Retention statements each page makes about its own output. Input ceilings are a separate subject and are not recorded here. Order. The longer window first.
1A clock makes collection a scheduled step
Both windows are generous for one piece and thin for a batch. A queue that runs overnight and is reviewed the next afternoon fits inside either; one that runs on a Friday and is reviewed on a Monday fits inside neither.
The failure is quiet. Nothing errors at generation time, the pieces were produced correctly, and the problem appears when somebody opens a link. That is exactly the kind of specification that belongs in a register rather than in a footnote.
2The re-generation costs are not the same
On the two day row a repeat request is subject to the same tier and length conditions the page attaches: eight seconds needs 1080p, 4k or reference images. On the one day row nothing is coupled, so a repeat is a plain request at any tier.
So the shorter window belongs to the cheaper recovery and the longer window to the more conditioned one. Reading the retention cell alone would get that backwards.
3Silence here is not permanence
Thirteen rows say nothing about retention. That is a gap, not a guarantee, and these sheets mark it hollow rather than assuming either answer, because a pipeline built on the wrong assumption fails late and expensively.
The practical rule is the same on every row: copy the output into storage the buyer controls as soon as the job finishes. On these two rows the deadline is published; on the rest it has to be guessed at.
4The rest of the column behind these two
| Generator | File |
|---|---|
| Amazon Nova Reel | Not stated |
| CogVideoX | Not stated |
| Google Veo | Held on the server for 2 days |
| Grok Imagine | Not stated |
| Hedra | Not stated |
| HeyGen | Upload ceilings, 32MB to 100MB |
| Kling AI | Not stated |
| LTX-Video | Not stated |
| MiniMax | Not stated |
| Pika | Not stated |
| PixVerse | Not stated |
| Runway | Input ceilings, 5MB to 200MB |
| SceneMixer | Not stated |
| Vidu | Not stated |
| Wan 3.0 | A URL valid for 24 hours |
Inclusion rule. Every generator this register carries, on the one column this pair disagrees about. Rows that state nothing keep their place and are marked hollow. Order. Alphabetical by generator name.
Why these two. Two days against one is not a ranking worth making. What matters is that these are the only two rows where collection can be planned from a published figure instead of from an assumption that the file will still be there.
- How long the output stays fetchableGenerated videos are stored on the server for 2 days, after which they are removed
- How long the output stays fetchableA video URL valid for 24 hours is returned
5Sources
Read from Google's Veo documentation and the Wan3.0 API reference, both checked 2026-09-22. The column is described on file, and each entry has its own cell page at Google Veo and Wan 3.0, and the rule that keeps surfaces and generators apart is on method. Nearby pairs: Nova Reel and CogVideoX, HeyGen and Runway on size.