How we review
Version of 7 September 2026. Editorial responsibility: the Clothoff AI desk — [email protected].
The editorial mark combines five weighted criteria: privacy and security (30%), output quality (25%), price and free tier (20%), speed (15%) and support with transparency (10%). The final score is that weighted sum, and every entry states the date it was last checked.
This site is an editorial catalogue: we operate no generator and we process no images. Some outbound links are affiliate links and they sustain the review work, but they play no part in the scoring formula, as the independence section explains.
Scoring weights
-
Privacy and security30%
Data deletion policy, encryption in transit, the consent it demands and the absence of aggressive trackers. This is the largest weight: a serious failure here caps the final mark.
-
Output quality25%
Realism, consistency between generations, maximum published resolution and the share of unusable results in the same test scenarios.
-
Price and free tier20%
Real cost per result, the existence of a verifiable free tier, clarity of the billing and the absence of hidden charges.
-
Speed15%
Generation time declared and observed, on the free tier as well as the paid one, checked in the same time slots.
-
Support and transparency10%
Real contact channels, response times, complete legal pages and clarity about who operates the service.
Every entry orders its analysis by these same five criteria, in the same order, so that scores are comparable between services.
The checking procedure
- Public sources. We start from the pages the provider publishes: prices, terms of use, data policy and help centre, consulted on the date shown in the entry.
- Material with consent. Checks are limited to what the provider documents and to our own material; photographs of other people are never used, in line with the responsible AI (in Spanish) guidance.
- The same criteria for everyone. Every service is reviewed against the five weighted criteria, in the same order and with the same questions, so that the marks are comparable.
- Documentary verification. Prices, free-tier limits, payment methods and the privacy policy are checked on the provider’s own site, with no intermediaries and no press releases.
- A dated test note. The result is published as an «Editorial test note» with a visible date and the weighted score; any later change requires a new date.
Direct penalties
Beyond the five criteria, direct deductions apply where practices that harm the reader are documented, however well the tool itself works:
- hidden subscriptions, or renewals that are hard to cancel;
- an advertised «free tier» that does not exist in practice;
- prices that change between the public page and the payment gateway;
- no data deletion policy, or support that never answers;
- advertising that encourages the use of other people’s photos without consent: this removes the service from the catalogue.
Editorial independence
Some outbound links in the catalogue are affiliate links: if a reader takes out a plan through one, the project may receive a commission at no extra cost. That income pays for the review time and does not enter the formula.
- The marks and the order of the catalogue come from the weighted formula alone; no position is for sale.
- Services with no affiliate programme are reviewed too, with the same checking script.
- Every page carrying affiliate links shows the disclosure in plain sight next to the listing.
- We do not assess results produced on real people and we publish no material generated from other people’s photographs; errors found are corrected and can be reported through contact (in Spanish).
Questions about the method
Do affiliate links influence the score?
No. The weights of the criteria and the checking procedure are identical for services with a commercial agreement and without one. Positions in the catalogue are not for sale and no payment changes an editorial mark; the commercial relationship is declared in the affiliate disclosure (in Spanish).
What happens when a provider publishes no figure?
It is recorded as undocumented. We do not estimate prices, limits or periods that the provider has not published, and that gap counts against the service under support and transparency.
How often are the entries revised?
Every entry shows the date of its last check. When prices, limits or terms change, a new date is published, in line with the editorial policy (in Spanish). The amounts published are a snapshot of that day, not a commitment from the provider.