Review of DeepUndress

DeepUndress scored 8.8/10 in our test of 14 August 2026. It stands out for processing speed and for a credit system, called stars, with a published cost per action: 10 stars per image and 25 per video on standard accounts, falling to 8 and 20 with an active plan.

Lawful use only with your own photos, or photos of adults who have given explicit consent. Responsible AI (in Spanish).

Every figure above comes from the provider’s own public pages on the date of the test. Prices change without notice, and the date is what makes the number readable.

Privacy and security (30%)

Sign-up by email with processing in the cloud. The data policy is less detailed than those of the catalogue leaders and part of the terms appears only after an account is created: that is the main deduction here.

Output quality (25%)

With well-lit frontal photographs the result was correct and quick; with complex poses or low light the quality falls further than in the better-scoring tools. Short video is functional rather than remarkable.

Price and free tier (20%)

The cost per action is clear once you are inside, and the discount with an active plan plus the activation bonus improve the value. Even so, the weekly format of the entry plan works out expensive for sustained use.

Speed (15%)

The strongest criterion: the queue answered in seconds throughout the test session, with no notable difference between quiet and peak hours in our spot measurements.

Support and transparency (10%)

The clearest weakness: no complete public pricing page, terms behind sign-up and support by form only. The amounts we verified agree across sources, but the reader cannot check them before registering.

The five weights are fixed across the whole catalogue and are set out in how we review. A tool is never marked against a rival, only against the same scale.

On 14/08/2026 the desk read the provider’s publicly visible pricing, payment and help pages, recorded every amount and limit into the table above, and ran the service through the same standardised scenarios used across the catalogue: well-lit frontal photographs at medium and high resolution, taken from our own test set.

What we record is what the provider states in public and what the interface does in front of us. On the free tier the first line we check is what the provider offers without payment, and here that reads: courtesy trials limited to sign-up, subject to the offer in force.

What we do not do: we never test these tools on photographs of third parties, we publish no results from such attempts if they reach us, and we do not estimate figures the provider leaves unpublished. An absence is recorded as an absence, which lowers the mark on the criterion concerned rather than being filled in with a guess.

Prices and limits change without notice. The date beside every figure is what makes it readable, and the desk re-checks the catalogue on a rolling basis — the next verification date will replace the one above.

• Rombach et al., High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models — The diffusion inpainting this class of tool is built on.
• Kirillov et al., Segment Anything — The segmentation approach behind automatic garment masks.
• Diario Oficial de la Federación, Ley Olimpia reforms — The Mexican text on dissemination of intimate content, real or simulated, without consent.
• Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the AI Act — Article 50 sets the disclosure duty for synthetic content.
• StopNCII.org — The international removal route for non-consensual intimate images.
• TAKE IT DOWN Act, S.146 — The United States takedown obligation, relevant where a provider is hosted there.

Prices, limits and retention come from the provider’s own public pages on the date of the test. Technical and legal claims rest on the published work above. Everything else is what the desk observed in its standardised scenarios.