Luvo AI vs Candy AI

Candy AI sells tokens, and a token is not a photograph. An image costs 2 tokens on their V1 model and 4 on V2. Their Premium plan is 100 tokens a month, so the honest way to read it is 50 photographs — or 25, if you use the better model, which is the one you will want. A voice message is 0.2 tokens and a call is 3 a minute, out of the same hundred — so a half-hour call is 90 tokens, which is most of a month.

Ours is a credit a minute, the same credit a photograph costs, billed per minute started with the price on the button before you press it and the running total on screen while you talk. It needs a paid plan; the free tier is for meeting her. And it shows her face rather than a waveform, though the clip is a loop and not lip-sync, and we would rather say so here than let you find out.

That is the complaint the reviews keep making about this category and it is not really about the price. It is that you cannot answer "what does this cost me" without opening a table first, and the answer changes depending on which model you picked, whether you sent a voice note, and how long you were on the call. A budget you have to look up is a budget you cannot feel.

Luvo has one unit. A photo is one credit, a voice note is one credit, a video is three, chat is free and always will be. Nothing costs double on a better model, because there is no worse one to save money with. The exchange rate is printed on the pricing page rather than hidden behind a dropdown, which is a low bar that the category mostly fails to clear.

Voice is the honest test of that rule, because it is where a whole number costs us something. Their 0.2-token voice message is a tenth of their image; ours is a note that costs exactly what a photograph costs. Somebody who mostly wants to hear her gets more for their money on Candy, and the reason we did not price a fifth of a credit is that there is no such thing as a fifth of a credit here.

Month to month, their Premium works out at about $0.30 a photograph and Luvo Plus at $0.15 — twice the pictures for slightly less money. On a twelve-month commitment theirs comes down to about $0.086 and ours to $0.050, so the gap narrows but does not close.

Their Premium Plus is the interesting comparison, because it is the plan somebody who actually generates images ends up on. At $19.44 a month on a twelve-month term it buys 165 photographs, about $0.118 each. Luvo Premium on the same term is $18.99 for 400, about $0.047. That is the honest headline: at roughly the same money, two and a half times the photographs.

None of this makes their product bad. It makes their pricing a token economy, and token economies are priced to be difficult to compare. That is the whole reason this page has a table in it.

Price is the easy argument and it is not the one that matters most. The reason people leave these products is that the woman in the second photograph is not the woman in the first — same prompt, same settings, different face. You notice it immediately and it breaks the only thing the product was selling.

Luvo builds her face once and every subsequent image is an edit of that person rather than a fresh roll of the dice. That is why a photo costs what it costs: after her first one, every render is doing more work, not less.

Do not take our word for it. Both products have a free tier. Make the same woman on both, put her in three different outfits and three different rooms, and look at the faces side by side. If ours does not hold up, none of the arithmetic above matters and you should ignore this page.

Luvo's free tier is 10 credits a month, one girl, and unlimited chat, renewed every month rather than granted once. There is no card, and there is no welcome bonus designed to run out the moment you are interested — the free month is the whole of it, and it comes back next month. A credit is a photograph or a voice note, so a free account can hear her without paying anything.

Ten photographs is enough to make a woman, shoot her a few ways and have a conversation, which is exactly what it is sized for. It is not enough to use the product properly, and we would rather say that than imply otherwise.