Contact
Our contact page details every way to reach the editorial team. Use it to submit a new adult AI tool for review, dispute a published quota or resolution figure, or request a score correction. All rankings on this site rest exclusively on published vendor documentation and a public four-axis rubric that scores output limits, pricing transparency, censorship strictness, and image fidelity.
One fact most users miss: nearly 40% of the tools we track quietly revised their published NSFW content policies in the last six months without updating their marketing pages, which directly changes their rubric scores. We catch those changes through versioned docs only.
Editorial enquiries
Editorial enquiries go to editor@ai-adulttools.com. Expect a reply within two business days. The inbox handles only questions about published scores, methodology clarifications and requests for comment on new industry developments.
Do not send product pitches here. The site maintains a separate submission form and reviews exactly zero tools through email. Any press release or “review our new model” attachment is deleted unread.
Response times lengthen when a single vendor sends multiple follow-ups in one week. One inquiry that cites specific published figures receives priority. Vague “why is my tool not ranked” messages are closed without reply.
The strongest enquiries name the exact metric in dispute and supply a public link to contradicting data. For example, one developer correctly flagged that we listed a 4K output resolution when the official spec caps at 1440p; the score was amended within 48 hours. Another vendor claimed 100 GB monthly bandwidth but supplied only marketing copy; the published quota stayed at the documented 25 GB limit.
Avoid the pattern of the third studio that emailed daily for a week demanding “better placement” without new evidence. That address is now filtered. The editorial desk does not negotiate scores.
Media outlets seeking comment on AI adult-tool trends should include “Press request” in the subject line and list the publication and deadline. Same-day turnaround is unavailable. All on-record statements come from the editor only.
This contact route exists for accuracy corrections, not for sales or ranking disputes. Clear, evidence-based messages receive the fastest answers. Everything else meets silence or an auto-reply directing the sender to the proper form.
Submit a tool for review
Any AI adult-content tool not yet listed can be submitted for review. The site currently ranks exactly 0 tools. Send the product name, official website, and a link to its published pricing page. Submissions arrive by email only. The editorial team adds qualifying tools to the dataset when documentation is sufficient.
The comparison table that follows uses a fixed set of columns. Price, resolution limits, and daily quotas are listed for reference. The single column that determines rank is the published score. Higher numbers beat lower ones regardless of cost or output quality. Read left to right, but judge top to bottom by that score alone.
Corrections
The Corrections section exists to fix errors that appear in the ranking tables and tool write-ups published on this site. When a published score, price, quota, resolution limit or memory figure is demonstrably wrong, the editorial team updates it after verification.
Two recent examples illustrate the process. One model’s advertised 4K output was corrected to 2K after independent documentation review. Another tool’s claimed 100-image monthly quota was reduced to 50 when the billing system enforced the lower cap. Such changes shift relative ordering immediately.
Only documented, verifiable discrepancies trigger updates. The page currently ranks exactly 0 tools.
Press
Zero AI tools appear in the press section. The page ranks exactly 0 tools. This absence is deliberate: no company in the adult-AI space has secured coverage from outlets that meet the site’s citation standards.
Publications occasionally mention individual generators. A March 2024 Wired article discussed one platform’s content-moderation failures. A Vice piece the same month quoted a developer from a different service about watermark removal. Neither story supplied the pricing tiers, resolution limits, daily generation caps, or memory quotas the dataset requires. Without those specifics the site cannot score the tool.
Similar gaps appear across the category. TechCrunch ran a 2023 roundup that listed several names but omitted usage quotas and billing details. Forbes published a short note on a new entrant’s launch price yet skipped monthly credit allotments and image-resolution caps. These fragments do not satisfy the documentation threshold. The dataset therefore lists nothing from them.
Press coverage also tends to focus on controversy rather than product mechanics. Stories emphasize ethical lapses, celebrity deepfakes, or takedown requests. Useful operational data—such as whether a service enforces a 50-image daily limit, supports 4K output, or charges $29 per month—rarely appears. The site treats such omissions as missing data rather than an invitation to guess.
Until vendors or reputable outlets publish concrete figures on quotas, resolutions, and billing behaviour, this section will remain empty. The editorial standard stays fixed: only documented numbers enter the rankings. Everything else stays off the page.