Mark Hachman, the senior editor of
PC World, compared Udio to
AI art generators and praised its ability to turn "a few rather poor lyrics" into a "rather catchy" song, also calling the vocals it generated "incredibly realistic and even emotional". He added that the program was geared toward "people with no or minimal musical ability". Brian Hiatt of
Rolling Stone wrote that Udio was "more customizable but also perhaps less intuitive to use" than Suno and added that "some early users have suggested that on average, Udio's output may sound crisper than Suno's".
Copyright concerns Critics of Udio have questioned what data was used to train it and if that data consisted of copyrighted music.
Rolling Stone wrote that there was "substantial reason to believe" that both Udio and Suno were trained with copyrighted music, while Benj Edwards of
Ars Technica wrote that its training data was "likely filled with copyrighted material".
Stability AI took a different approach with Stable Audio 2.0, and used an explicitly
licensed dataset of music called AudioSparx. In June 2024, a lawsuit, led by the
Recording Industry Association of America, was filed against Udio and
Suno alleging widespread infringement of copyrighted sound recordings. The lawsuit sought to bar the companies from training on copyrighted music, as well as damages of up to $150,000 per work from infringements that have already taken place. In October 2025, a copyright lawsuit from
Universal Music Group was settled down with licensing agreements. Udio agreed to launch a platform only trained with "authorized and licensed music". Udio then announced that existing users would have 48 hours to download their creations before the company transitioned to a new streaming-based business model. ==References==