| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 16 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates photorealistic videos from text prompts using Ray3.14 model with built-in physics simulation and natural motion synthesis. The system interprets semantic descriptions of movement, gravity, and object interactions to produce videos with physically plausible motion rather than interpolated frames. Supports multiple output resolutions (540p, 720p, 1080p) and draft mode for faster iteration, with optional HDR variant for enhanced color grading and dynamic range.
Unique: Integrates physics-aware motion synthesis into the generation pipeline rather than relying on frame interpolation or optical flow, enabling semantically coherent motion that respects physical laws described in text prompts. Ray3.14 architecture appears to embed physics constraints during diffusion rather than post-processing.
vs alternatives: Produces more physically plausible motion than Runway or Pika Labs' interpolation-based approaches, with explicit support for gravity, collision, and object interaction semantics in text prompts.
Enables fine-grained control over camera movement through natural language descriptions of cinematography techniques (sweeping panoramas, close-ups, tracking shots, dolly movements). The system parses camera intent from text prompts and synthesizes corresponding camera trajectories and framing during video generation. Works in conjunction with text-to-video generation to produce videos with intentional camera work rather than static or random viewpoints.
Unique: Parses cinematographic intent from natural language rather than requiring manual keyframe specification or camera parameter input. The system infers camera trajectory, framing, and movement timing from semantic descriptions of film techniques, embedding this into the generation process.
vs alternatives: Offers more intuitive camera control than Runway's limited camera parameters, and more semantic flexibility than tools requiring explicit keyframe or trajectory specification.
Implements a credit-based billing system where each API operation (video generation, image generation, audio generation, utilities) consumes a specific number of credits. Monthly subscription plans (Plus $30, Pro $90, Ultra $300) provide credit allowances with multipliers for Luma Agents (4x for Pro, 15x for Ultra). Per-operation costs range from 1 credit (background removal) to 768 credits (video-to-video 1080p HDR). Free trial credits are provided but amount not specified.
Unique: Uses credit-based billing with per-operation costs rather than per-request or per-minute pricing, enabling fine-grained cost control based on operation type and quality tier. Subscription multipliers (4x/15x for Luma Agents) suggest tiered access to advanced features.
vs alternatives: More transparent than per-request pricing by showing exact credit cost per operation. Subscription tiers with multipliers provide cost savings for high-volume users, though credit-to-USD conversion rate is not documented.
Enables draft mode for video generation operations, consuming 4 credits (vs. 80 for 1080p full quality) for text-to-video and image-to-video, and 12 credits (vs. 192 for 1080p full quality) for video-to-video. Draft mode produces lower-resolution or lower-quality previews suitable for concept validation and iteration before committing to full-resolution renders. Supports all video generation models and modes.
Unique: Provides explicit draft mode with 20x cost reduction (4 vs. 80 credits for text-to-video) compared to full-resolution output, enabling rapid iteration without expensive full-quality renders. Draft mode is integrated into all video generation operations.
vs alternatives: More cost-efficient than competitors' single-tier pricing by offering explicit draft mode. Enables faster iteration cycles for prompt engineering and concept validation.
Provides HDR (High Dynamic Range) variants of Ray3.14 video generation for enhanced color grading, dynamic range, and visual fidelity. HDR variants cost 4x more than standard variants (16 credits draft to 320 credits 1080p for text/image-to-video, 48-768 credits for video-to-video). Enables production-quality output with extended color space and luminance range suitable for premium content and cinema workflows.
Unique: Offers explicit HDR variant of Ray3.14 with 4x cost premium, enabling developers to choose between standard and HDR output based on quality requirements. HDR is integrated into all video generation modes (text-to-video, image-to-video, video-to-video).
vs alternatives: Provides cinema-grade HDR output as optional upgrade, whereas competitors typically offer single quality tier. Cost premium is transparent, enabling informed quality-cost decisions.
Supports multiple output resolutions (540p, 720p, 1080p) for video generation with corresponding credit costs (4-80 for text/image-to-video, 12-192 for video-to-video in standard mode). Developers select resolution based on quality requirements and budget. Higher resolutions consume more credits but produce sharper, more detailed output suitable for different distribution channels and display sizes.
Unique: Offers explicit multi-resolution tiers (540p/720p/1080p) with transparent credit costs, enabling developers to make informed quality-cost decisions. Resolution selection is integrated into all video generation operations.
vs alternatives: More granular resolution control than competitors offering single-tier output. Transparent per-resolution pricing enables cost optimization for different use cases.
Provides transparent credit-based pricing model where each operation consumes a specific number of credits based on model, resolution, and duration. The system enables users to estimate costs before generation and track cumulative usage across operations. Credits are purchased through subscription tiers (Plus $30/mo, Pro $90/mo, Ultra $300/mo) or consumed from free trial allocations.
Unique: Implements transparent credit-based pricing where costs are predictable and documented per operation (e.g., Ray3.14 1080p = 80 credits), enabling cost-aware API usage and budget planning. Subscription tiers provide monthly credit allocations with 20% discount for annual billing.
vs alternatives: Provides transparent per-operation credit costs (unlike competitors with opaque per-API-call pricing), enabling accurate cost estimation and budget planning for large-scale projects.
Offers tiered subscription plans (Plus, Pro, Ultra) with increasing monthly credit allocations and feature access. The system maps subscription tier to usage limits and feature availability (e.g., Plus includes commercial use, Pro includes 4x usage with Luma Agents, Ultra includes 15x usage). Enables users to select tier based on projected usage and feature requirements.
Unique: Implements tiered subscription model with explicit usage scaling (Pro = 4x, Ultra = 15x) and feature gating (commercial use in Plus+, Luma Agents in Pro+), enabling users to select tier based on both budget and feature requirements. Annual billing provides 20% discount vs. monthly.
vs alternatives: Provides transparent tiered pricing with clear feature differentiation (commercial use, Luma Agents access), whereas competitors often use opaque per-API-call pricing without clear tier benefits, enabling easier subscription selection and budget planning.
+8 more capabilities
Manages conversation history as immutable thread objects stored server-side, where each message appends to a thread rather than requiring clients to maintain conversation state. Threads persist across API calls and sessions, enabling stateless client implementations. The architecture decouples conversation management from model invocation, allowing assistants to be reused across multiple independent threads without state collision.
Unique: Server-side thread abstraction eliminates client-side conversation state management; threads are first-class API objects with immutable append-only semantics, not just message arrays. This differs from stateless LLM APIs where clients must manage context windows and history truncation.
vs alternatives: Eliminates context window management burden compared to raw LLM APIs (e.g., Claude API, GPT-4 completions), but adds latency and cost overhead vs. in-memory conversation state in frameworks like LangChain
Provides a managed Python 3.11 execution environment accessible via the Code Interpreter tool, where assistants can write and execute arbitrary Python code with access to common libraries (pandas, numpy, matplotlib, scikit-learn). Code runs in isolated sandboxes with file I/O, plotting, and data visualization capabilities. Execution results (stdout, stderr, generated files) are returned to the assistant for further processing.
Unique: Managed Python sandbox integrated directly into the agent loop — assistants can iteratively write, execute, and refine code without external compute provisioning. Execution results feed back into the LLM context, enabling self-correcting workflows. Differs from Replit or Jupyter APIs which require explicit session management.
vs alternatives: Simpler than provisioning Jupyter kernels or Lambda functions for code execution, but slower and less flexible than local Python execution; better for lightweight analysis than heavy ML workloads
OpenAI Assistants scores higher at 76/100 vs Luma Labs API at 56/100. However, Luma Labs API offers a free tier which may be better for getting started.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
When an assistant calls a tool, the run enters a 'requires_action' state. Clients must submit tool call results via the submit_tool_outputs API, which resumes the run with the tool results injected into context. This enables iterative workflows where assistants can call tools, receive results, and refine responses based on results. Tool results are stored in the thread and visible to subsequent runs, enabling multi-turn tool-assisted reasoning.
Unique: Tool results are submitted explicitly via API, not returned in-band — enables clients to process, validate, or transform results before injection. Runs pause in 'requires_action' state, giving clients full control over tool execution and result handling.
vs alternatives: More flexible than automatic tool execution (clients can implement custom logic), but requires more client-side code than frameworks like LangChain where tool execution is automatic; enables external tool integration without modifying assistant code
Assistants can be created from scratch or cloned from existing assistants, copying all configuration (instructions, tools, model, file attachments). Cloning enables template-based assistant creation where a base assistant is configured once and then cloned for different use cases or users. Cloned assistants are independent — changes to one don't affect others. This reduces setup overhead for creating similar assistants.
Unique: Assistants are cloneable objects — configuration can be copied to create new assistants without manual setup. Enables template-based assistant creation and multi-tenant provisioning patterns.
vs alternatives: Simpler than manually creating assistants with identical configuration, but less flexible than parameterized templates; no built-in versioning or rollback compared to infrastructure-as-code approaches
Files uploaded to assistants are stored in OpenAI's managed file storage and associated with assistants or threads. Files can be deleted explicitly via API, and OpenAI automatically cleans up files after 30 days of inactivity. File storage is charged per file per assistant; deleting unused files reduces costs. Files can be reused across multiple assistants and threads, but each association incurs a separate storage charge.
Unique: Files are managed server-side with automatic cleanup after 30 days — no manual file system management required. Files are associated with assistants and charged per association, enabling cost tracking at the file level.
vs alternatives: Simpler than managing files in external storage (S3, GCS), but less flexible and more expensive for high-volume file usage; automatic cleanup reduces manual maintenance but limits retention control
The File Search tool indexes uploaded files (PDFs, text, code) using OpenAI's embedding model and enables assistants to retrieve relevant passages via semantic search. Files are chunked, embedded, and stored in a managed vector index. When an assistant queries the index, it retrieves the most relevant chunks based on cosine similarity, then includes them in the prompt context. This enables RAG-style retrieval without managing embeddings or vector databases.
Unique: Fully managed vector indexing and retrieval without exposing embedding or vector database layers — files are indexed automatically on upload, and search is invoked implicitly when assistants reference file_search tool. Abstracts away Pinecone/Weaviate setup but sacrifices control over chunking and embedding strategies.
vs alternatives: Faster to implement than building custom RAG with LangChain + Pinecone, but less flexible; no control over chunk size, embedding model, or retrieval parameters compared to self-managed vector databases
Assistants can invoke multiple tools (Code Interpreter, File Search, custom functions) in parallel or sequence based on task requirements. Tool calls are defined via JSON schema (OpenAI function calling format), and the assistant decides which tools to invoke and in what order. Results from tool calls are fed back into the assistant's context, enabling iterative refinement. Supports both parallel execution (multiple tools called simultaneously) and sequential chaining (tool output feeds into next tool's input).
Unique: Tool invocation is driven by the LLM's reasoning — the assistant decides which tools to call, in what order, and with what parameters based on task context. Supports both parallel and sequential execution patterns. Differs from static tool pipelines (e.g., Zapier) where execution order is pre-defined.
vs alternatives: More flexible than hardcoded tool chains, but less predictable than explicit DAGs; requires careful prompt engineering to ensure correct tool selection vs. frameworks like LangChain where tool routing can be more explicit
Assistants can receive file attachments (PDFs, images, code, data files) within messages, which are automatically indexed and made available for retrieval or analysis. Files are stored in OpenAI's managed file storage and can be referenced by subsequent messages in the thread. The assistant can analyze file content via Code Interpreter, search file content via File Search, or reference files in function calls. Files persist within a thread and are accessible across multiple turns.
Unique: Files are first-class message attachments with automatic indexing and managed storage — no separate file management API required. Files persist in thread context and are automatically made available to all tools (Code Interpreter, File Search, function calls) without explicit routing.
vs alternatives: Simpler than managing files separately and passing file paths to tools; automatic indexing reduces setup vs. manual chunking and embedding, but less control over file processing compared to custom pipelines
+5 more capabilities