Bài viết bên dưới được đăng bằng tiếng Anh. Mọi con số trong đó là con số do chính nhà cung cấp công bố, kèm ngày chúng tôi đọc được.
Luma is one brand over two products, and the split decides which price you are reading. The consumer workspace is the Luma App, where you plan and generate in a browser. The developer surface is the Luma API, metered by credits against each model and output specification rather than sold as a subscription tier. Luma's own information page, as of 8 October 2026, names Ray3.2 as its current video model and calls Dream Machine and Ray2 deprecated.
The entry price is published on one card
Luma's individual plans sit on one page rather than on a product page of their own. Read on 8 October 2026, the cheapest individual card is Plus, and it prints "$30/month" beside "$300 billed yearly" under a toggle labeled "Save up to 20% with yearly". The card lists 10,000 credits against that tier, and the cards above it name Pro and Ultra as the steps up.
Two figures printed side by side and labeled is what makes the monthly one quotable, so it is the number at the top of this profile. The yearly figure is the annual total for a year of the plan, and the card labels it in those words rather than presenting it as a monthly rate.
The address a reader would guess does not lead there. As of 8 October 2026, /dream-machine redirects to the Luma app rather than to a plans page, so the first URL worth trying is not the one that answers the pricing question. The plans are at /pricing, which resolves without a redirect.
A trial grant is stated, and the quantity is not
The question a reader brings to this page is what they get before they pay. Luma answers that in one direction and not the other. Its own information states that free trial credits are included on all plans, and no page we read puts a number on that grant. So this profile carries the fact that a trial exists and carries no quantity, because the quantity is unpublished rather than zero. What a trial-generated output may be used for is a separate question with its own answer in Luma's terms, and this profile does not read the trial grant and the commercial-use question as one.
That distinction is the reason Luma sits fifth in our video ranking rather than higher or lower. The tools above it publish a free allowance with a number in it. The two tools below it differ from each other: Pika prints zero monthly credits on its Free tier with paid packs for sale, and Google Veo prints Not available on the free tier row of its own pricing page, so neither grants anything you can plan around. A grant that is stated but unquantified belongs above both, because it gives you something to spend while they give you nothing, and ranking a product last on a figure nobody established is scoring an absence as a value, and reading an unstated quantity as zero is the same mistake pointing the other way.
The API carries its own meter, which is the detail that matters if you are building generation into your own product rather than subscribing to a web app. Luma prices it per model and per output specification, and documents it publicly. Our methodology sets out why the price and the allowance are recorded as two separate questions, and AI video is the hub for this category.