Hailuo AI

By Minel Gunesoglu, founder of Vouch. No video was generated for this review. What I did was open the vendor's own plan table in both billing views, read both of its published contracts, and put a date on every figure below. The plan table was read on 9 September 2026, the two contracts and the Trustpilot page on 8 September 2026, and the leaderboard row on 5 September 2026. Re-checked monthly.

The blind-vote leaderboard that measures this product does not print the word Hailuo anywhere on the view its rating comes from. The row reads MiniMax H3. That is the same model the vendor's own homepage title advertises, "Hailuo AI: MiniMax H3 LIVE NOW", read 8 September 2026, and it is the first sign of what makes this product awkward to shop for: five different names for the same purchase are in circulation, each one on a surface that is the only place a particular reader will look.

The brand is Hailuo AI. The model is MiniMax H3. The company site runs at minimax.io and calls itself MiniMax. The Google Play developer line is a fourth string, "MiniMax AI", which is neither the brand nor the name on the company site nor the name on the contracts. And the party on both published contracts is Nanonoble Pte. Ltd., which appears on no marketing surface at all and is spelled with the comma in three different places across the three documents that name it. A buyer types the first name, the measurement carries the second, the app store carries the fourth, and the paperwork carries the fifth. Everything below is an attempt to line those surfaces up: what the plan table charges, what the licence lets you do with a clip, what the public review records say, and what the score is built from.

What is Hailuo AI, and why the leaderboard row says MiniMax H3

Hailuo AI is a consumer web application for generating video from a text prompt or an image, sold on monthly credit allowances at hailuoai.video. Its create panel names the model it runs as MiniMax H3, which matches the model name in the vendor's own page title, both read 8 September 2026.

Two naming traps are worth clearing before any number below makes sense. First, hailuoai.com is a separate Chinese-language product from the same company, with its own title and its own documentation path; the international product is hailuoai.video, and every figure on this page was read from that domain or from a platform record filed under it. Second, the company site at minimax.io files MiniMax H3 under a models menu whose siblings are other MiniMax models, and lists its named products separately. The consumer video app does not appear in that product menu under either name. That is recorded here rather than explained, because nothing read for this page explains it.

The practical consequence for a reader is small and specific. If you go to a leaderboard looking for the word Hailuo, you will find the wrong rows. The rows that carry the brand name, Hailuo 02 Standard, Hailuo 2.3, Hailuo 02 Pro and T2V-01, are 2024 and 2025 models, and they sit in a different pool of 81 entries whose ratings are computed against a different field. They are not on the same scale as the row this card reads, and setting one beside the other would be reading two instruments as though they were one.

Hailuo AI pricing: a header that reads $9.99 and an entry plan that costs $10.50

Three figures describe the cheapest paid tier of this product, and all three were printed by the vendor on 9 September 2026. The site header and the sidebar control both read, verbatim, "From $9.99 /mo". The cheapest paid plan in the monthly view is $10.50 a month. The same plan in the yearly view is $8.40 a month, billed $100.80 for the year. No tier in either view costs $9.99. Why the three differ is not something this reading can tell you, and it is not guessed at here: the honest answer is that a header is a marketing surface and a plan table is a checkout surface, and this vendor is not the first to let the two drift. Which of the three you are actually charged is settled at the till, not by any of them.

One practical note before the figures, because it will save you the confusion it cost this desk. Requesting hailuoai.video/subscribe or /pricing directly answers with a redirect to the homepage while you are signed out. The table opens as a modal from that same "From $9.99 /mo" control inside the app's own sidebar, with no account required, and the URL then becomes /subscribe. Both billing views were clicked and read back there on 9 September 2026.

The monthly Standard row prints "$14.99" struck through beside a "30% OFF" badge and "$10.50 billed monthly". The yearly Standard row strikes the same $14.99 and prints "44% OFF" against "$100.80 billed yearly". If you are budgeting from a screenshot somebody else took, look at the two prices printed inside your own plan's row rather than out of the badge above it.

Is Hailuo AI free? What the $0.00 row prints

There is a free tier and it is not a trial that expires the account. The free row prints "$0.00 /month" and "0 credits monthly", with one-time trial credits and access limited to the vendor's own models rather than to the bought-in ones the paid rows list. Read that as a sample rather than an allowance: the paid rows are the ones with a recurring credit figure attached, and the free row's own text puts its credits at zero per month. What the trial credits are worth in seconds of video is not stated on that screen, and nothing else read for this page settles it.

Hailuo AI cost per second: the rate changes with the billing period, the credits do not

This is the paragraph most worth your time, and it is not a discount. Inside the Standard plan, generating with MiniMax H3 at 2K is priced at $0.126 per second on monthly billing and $0.101 per second on yearly billing. The credit allowance attached to that plan is 1000 either way. So committing to twelve months does not only lower the bill; it lowers the unit price of the work, and the same allowance therefore buys more seconds of finished video. Both figures were read off the same screen on 9 September 2026, one view apart.

The same split runs through the other rows read that day.

If you are pricing a job rather than a hobby, work in seconds and not in months. A monthly subscriber and a yearly subscriber on the same tier are buying the same credits at two different rates.

What a Hailuo AI Pro plan includes: two views of one tier, two different lists

The two billing views also describe the tier's contents differently. In the yearly view, the Pro card prints a list of image entitlements including "Nano Banana Pro 1K Unlimited", "Seedream 5.0 Lite 2K Unlimited" and "GPT Image 1.5 Unlimited", and the Master card prints the same set at 2K. In the monthly view, the Pro and Master cards print only "Access to Veo3.1, Sora2 models".

Whether a monthly plan genuinely lacks those image entitlements or the monthly card simply does not list them is not settled by anything read here, and this page asserts neither. What is recorded is that one tier was described two ways on one screen on one day. If those entitlements are the reason you are buying, that is a question for the vendor before the card is charged, not after.

One more thing the plan rows do. Every paid tier prints "Access to Veo3.1, Sora2 models", and the plan table also names Midjourney, Seedream and Nano Banana builds among its image models. Those are menu items resold inside somebody else's subscription. Nothing on this page measures any of them, and nothing on that menu is measured here; the rating below belongs to the one model the vendor says its own app runs.

Can you sell what Hailuo AI makes? What its Terms of Service say about commercial use

If you plan to put the result in front of a paying client or into a campaign, this section is the one that decides it, and it contains the single most misread sentence in the document. Under the heading Intellectual Property Rights of the Services, the Terms of Service state: "These Terms of Use permit you to use the Services for your personal, non-commercial use only". Read alone, that looks like a ban on selling anything you generate.

It is not, and the sentence that says so opens the same section: "This Section applies solely to the content existing on the Services at the time of your visit." The section then points the reader at a different heading for anything about generated work. It governs the vendor's own site material, the text and images and design that were there before you arrived.

The clause that governs your clips sits under User Contributions and User Generated Content, and it says: "We do not claim ownership of User Contributions or User Generated Content". Declining to own is not the end of the paragraph, though, because a licence runs the other way in the sentences around it. By using the service you give the company and its affiliates a "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive right" to use, reproduce, modify, publish, distribute and "derive revenue or other remuneration from" what you make, and the document adds: "This license survives termination of this Agreement by any party, for any reason." So the company declines to take ownership and takes a licence instead, and the licence outlives the account. What that leaves you free to do commercially is not stated in the document; what it leaves the company free to do is stated at length, in the paragraph above. Both halves are in the same paragraph of the same document, last modified 08/19/2026 by its own line and read 8 September 2026. The document prints no section numbers anywhere, so it can only be cited by heading.

Three obligations in that same section are worth knowing before you publish. You must not "remove, obscure, alter, or disable any watermark, metadata, label, or other notice applied by the Company to identify content as AI-generated or manipulated". You must disclose that content is AI-generated where law or the risk of deception requires it. And the document is explicit that the risk of using output commercially is yours: "If you use any User Generated Content for any personal, business, or commercial purpose, whether or not such use is permitted under these Terms of Use, you do so at your own risk."

On indemnity, the heading Indemnification runs one direction only. "You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Company, its affiliates, licensors, and service providers" against claims "arising out of or relating to your violation of these Terms of Use or your use of the Services", and no obligation runs the other way. What makes this clause worth a second look is not the direction but the date. The document's own Version History describes the 19 August 2026 update as having "added related disclaimer, indemnity, and liability provisions", which puts this obligation at three weeks old when it was read here. Only the vendor's summary of the change was captured and not the superseded document, so what a subscriber agreed to before that date is not established on this page. Where the new clause landed is the unremarkable part: of the 49 tools whose indemnity clause this desk had read by 9 September 2026, 40 run one way from user to company, five have the vendor defending the customer within a stated scope, two say nothing, one runs broadly in the customer's favour and one inverts the scope. A vendor writing this provision in August 2026 wrote the version almost everybody else was already using, which is why the row below prices it as the going rate rather than as a black mark.

Two further terms belong in a business decision. The liability cap reads "THE GREATER OF (A) THE AMOUNT YOU PAID TO THE COMPANY FOR THE SERVICES DURING THE TWELVE (12) MONTHS BEFORE THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM AND (B) US$100". Disputes fall under Singapore law, the company may require arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre "At the Company's sole discretion", and any claim must be started within one year.

There is a second agreement, and the interesting part is who signs it. Nanonoble Pte. Ltd. signs both, so unlike some products in this category the API and the consumer app are not two companies; they are one company writing two different sets of terms. The MiniMax Open Platform terms, effective 30 March 2026, cover API access and are signed by the same company. They read differently: indemnity runs both ways there, with the vendor defending the customer against third-party patent and copyright claims subject to stated conditions and carve-outs, and the document states that the customer retains ownership rights in input and generated content. An API buyer and a subscriber are under different agreements. Only the consumer document reaches the score. The API terms are on this page because a reader might sign the wrong one, not because they were measured.

Can you get a Hailuo AI refund? Neither published document uses the word

The word "refund" appears zero times in both captured documents, counted before either was read. Neither does "subscription", "credit", "trial", "billing", "price" or "purchase"; the word "paid" appears once, inside the liability cap. This agreement is about conduct and content and says nothing about money at all.

That is an absence in these two documents and it must not be stretched further. The vendor's own plan screen carries a collapsed FAQ that asks "Can I cancel a paid plan and get a refund?", and that answer was not expanded in this pass, so a refund term may well exist somewhere behind the checkout. What can be said is narrower and still useful: neither public document a prospective buyer can read before paying contains one, and the consumer agreement incorporates additional terms by reference under a heading that was not reachable while signed out.

Hailuo AI reviews: 1.4 on Trustpilot, 4.0 on Google Play, and what each sample is

Two public records rate this product and they disagree by more than two and a half stars. Both were read in a browser, a day apart, and neither is averaged into the other here.

Trustpilot's page for hailuoai.video reads 1.4 out of 5 across 94 reviews, read 8 September 2026, with the rating and the count taken from the page's own structured data and cross-checked against the visible header. The profile is unclaimed. The platform prints its own notice on it: "No history of asking for reviews", and beneath that, "This company hasn't invited their customers, so reviews may not be representative". Counted on the rendered first page, no review carried the platform's "Invited" label, twenty carried "Unprompted review", and no company reply appeared on any of them. That last one is a count of one page rather than of the profile: 94 reviews do not fit on it, and an unclaimed profile is a stronger reason to expect no replies than anything visible on the page itself.

No individual review is quoted on this page, and that is deliberate rather than an oversight. What was captured from that profile is the header, the profile state and the review labels, not the text of the reviews themselves, so quoting one would mean repeating something nobody here has verified against its own source. A number with a sample attached is worth more than a sentence with no provenance.

Google Play's listing for the app, developer line "MiniMax AI", reads 4.0 across 84.5K reviews with 10M+ downloads, read 9 September 2026. Put those two numbers side by side and you learn nothing, because they were not produced the same way. One comes from a prompt that surfaces inside an app somebody already installed and is using; the other comes from a site people navigate to deliberately, and the reason they navigate there is usually that something went wrong with a payment. Different rooms, different moods, different questions being answered.

Only the Trustpilot figure feeds the row below. That is a housekeeping decision rather than a judgement about which number is truer: the cards this one will sit beside were built off the same platform, and a column that mixes sources stops meaning anything. The Play figure is on this page with its date and it reaches no score.

The gap between the sample sizes is part of the picture too. Ninety-four reviews sit against a store listing that reads 10M+ downloads. Both are dated facts about different populations, and neither one describes the other.

Is there an official Hailuo AI iOS app? Apple's search returns none from this vendor

Apple's own search endpoint returns no application from this vendor. The two App Store listings titled "Hailuo AI" belong to developers named "Oleh Iskrenko" and "Malik Noman", read 9 September 2026. Nothing here establishes what those two applications are or who runs them, and no rating from either is used anywhere on this card; pooling one would put an unrelated developer's reviews into this product's record. What a buyer needs from this paragraph is one sentence: on iOS you will find listings that are not the vendor's, and the official mobile surface read for this page is Google Play.

What Hailuo AI subscribers complain about, when you go and ask them

The ratings above are two numbers with no reasons attached. The reasons are in the product's own subreddit, and the honest framing of what follows is that it was found by searching r/HailuoAiOfficial for refund, credits, cancel and disappointed, sorted by score, over the past year, on 9 September 2026. That is a search for complaints and it returns complaints. The same subreddit's front page that day is mostly people showing off clips. Read this as what the unhappy end of the record says, not as the shape of the whole.

Four things recur, and three of them are about money rather than about video. Each post below is linked, and each date is the platform's own stamp rather than a reading of the "5 months ago" text Reddit shows a visitor. Those two are not the same thing, and this page had them wrong before it had them right: the interval in the first paragraph below was published as five months, computed from the relative text, and the thread pages say six.

The first is an allowance sold as unlimited that arrives as a queue. On 10 September 2025 one poster wrote that after "not even 10 Minutes of Video material the website 'shadow bans' you by sending you in an infinite 3 minute queue for 768p and an infinite 6 minute queue for 1080p". Six months later, on 23 March 2026, another on the Pro annual plan reported it "throttled to the point where it's taking 10 minutes+ to create a single image. If I switch to using my credits it goes away." Two reports half a year apart are not a measurement of how often this happens, and nothing here says how often it happens.

The second is credits going missing at renewal. "Every time my sub ends some of my credits disapear. Now 3rd time I paid attention and I lost like 500 credits," one wrote on 22 February 2026; five months earlier, on 19 September 2025, another wrote "I know I had saved at least 275 of my previous credits, now I see you have deducted them." Hailuo AI's own paid-plan FAQ carries this exact question, and this desk did not open it, so what is on this page is the complaint and not the answer.

The third is the most recent and it costs money in a way that is easy to miss. Generations that fail at the end still consume the credits the seconds were metered against. "3rd day in a row now where every single generation gets a 'High Demand Failure' after reaching 100% on the render," one poster wrote on 21 August 2026, nineteen days before this reading; another, cancelling on 5 June 2026, described being "always in line for (3 minute wait) that turns into 20. Just to get a failure." Whether a failed generation is billed is another question the vendor's FAQ asks itself and that this desk left unexpanded.

The fourth is not about money at all, and its two posts are sixteen days apart in the same month rather than spread across the year like the others. On 10 July 2026 a poster described signing in with the same Apple ID on the phone and on the web and landing in a second, empty account, and could not cancel as a result, because cancelling is only offered on the surface they could not reach. On 26 July 2026 another described the same split and added the detail that makes it legible: the two sessions "have different UIDs" under one Apple ID, so the web surface "treats me as a free user".

None of this is verified by this desk, and none of it is quoted in this desk's own words. And the counterweight belongs in the same paragraph: a post from 3 May 2026 opens "I can see a lot of promise at Hailuo AI. There's real potential there" before going on to describe unclear communication about refunds.

What Hailuo AI's 69.9 score is built from, row by row

Four rows, four different kinds of evidence, and the useful question about each is what it was read off and on which day. Nothing below is a summary of other reviews.

Taken together the four rows give 69.9 out of 100, and this site's grade for that is average. Read them as four separate readings rather than as one verdict, because they are not equally strong. The leaderboard row rests on nearly nine thousand blind votes; the buyer-report row rests on 94 people who chose to write. A further question the contract might have answered, what a free account specifically may do with its output, has nothing in it to read: the agreement draws no line anywhere between a free and a paid account, so the commercial-terms row is built from the two positions the document does state. What each of these rows is allowed to rest on, and the things this desk refuses to claim, are set out in the methodology.

The leaderboard row deserves one caution that no rating can carry for you. That board measures a model through an API, and its own pricing column for this row reads $7.80 per minute. What you buy at hailuoai.video is a subscription. So the Elo is evidence about the model your subscription serves, and it says nothing about the subscription's delivery: the resolution ceiling on your tier, the queue you wait in, whether a failed generation still costs credits, or what the watermark policy does to a finished file. Those are different questions and the 1228 answers none of them.

Two more things about that figure, because it is the one most likely to age. It sits in a 4-5 tie band, which means the board itself does not separate that row from the one beneath it; treat rank 4 as a position inside a cluster rather than as a gap you could see in a clip. And one row above it carries an almost identical name, "Minimax H3 Max (post-trained by fal)", whose creator field reads Fal, a third-party inference host that post-trained its own variant. That is a different product sold by somebody else, its rating is not this vendor's, and it is not used here. Re-read on 8 September 2026 the Elo, the rank and the tie band were unchanged and only the vote count had moved, to 9,017, which is a live board accruing votes rather than a figure shifting under the card.

Hailuo AI alternatives, and who should skip this one

If Hailuo is not the buy, the video generators that have been through the same process at the time of writing are Kling AI, Seedance, Google's Veo 3 and PixVerse, and the category page is the list that stays current as more are added. Each one shows its working, which is the only reason it is worth setting one of those totals beside another. This page ranks none of them against Hailuo and none of them against each other. The ordering happens on that category page, where the site sorts by score when it builds, so nobody types the order and nobody has to remember to update it.

Who this suits. Someone who wants current-generation output quality at roughly ten dollars a month, who works in seconds of video and can therefore use the yearly rate deliberately, and who is content with a web application and a Google Play app as the surfaces. The strongest thing on this card is the model, and the licence paragraph is worth reading twice rather than once, because the sentence a careful reader trips over first is the one where the company declines to own the work, and the sentence that matters more is the one after it, where it takes a permanent licence to use the work anyway. On what a subscriber may then do commercially, and on whether a free account may do the same, the agreement says nothing at all. That silence is why the commercial-terms row above is built from two positions and not three.

Who should walk away. Anyone who needs a refund path in writing before paying, because neither published document contains one and the vendor's own FAQ question about it was not opened here. Anyone buying for the image entitlements listed on the yearly card, until the vendor confirms in writing whether a monthly plan carries them. Anyone who wants an iPhone app from this vendor, because the listings under that name on the App Store are not theirs. And anyone who cannot live with a broad, permanent licence back over generated work that survives closing the account, which is in the contract in plain words and is not going to be negotiated for one subscriber.

Written by Minel Gunesoglu, founder of Vouch. LinkedIn · what this desk does and does not do. Every figure above carries the date it was read and is re-opened on a monthly cycle; the plan table ages fastest, so it goes first. Nothing here is an affiliate link, and paid submission buys review speed only, never a listing and never a score.