---
slug: pixelcut
competitorName: Pixelcut
title: 'Genlook vs Pixelcut: Virtual Try-On APIs Compared'
description: >-
  Pixelcut's try-on endpoint is still beta, tuned for tops. Genlook is a
  standalone production try-on API. Pricing, product types and status compared.
keywords:
  - Genlook vs Pixelcut
  - Pixelcut alternative
  - virtual try on API
  - virtual try on API comparison
  - image editing API
eyebrow: Pixelcut alternative
h1: Genlook vs. Pixelcut
tldr: >-
  Pixelcut is an image-editing API with a try-on endpoint attached, still
  labeled beta and tuned for tops. Genlook is a standalone try-on API,
  production-grade and covering any product type. Here is how they compare on
  status, pricing and scope.
primaryCtaText: Get API keys
primaryCtaHref: 'https://platform.genlook.app'
secondaryCtaText: Read the docs →
secondaryCtaHref: /docs/tryon-api/introduction
noindex: false
canonicalPath: /developers/vs/pixelcut
---

<Verdict label="01 — The short verdict" title="A side feature, or the whole product." description="Pixelcut is a strong general image API where try-on is one endpoint among many. Genlook is a try-on API where try-on is the entire product.">
  <VerdictColumn name="Pixelcut" bestFor="Built for image editing">
    <Point type="pro">Broad image toolkit: background removal, upscaling, outpainting</Point>
    <Point type="pro">100 free credits on developer signup</Point>
    <Point type="con">Try-on is explicitly beta and "may change without notice"</Point>
    <Point type="con">Clothing only, and "works best with top garments"</Point>
    <Point type="con">Credits expire: no rollover between billing periods</Point>
  </VerdictColumn>
  <VerdictColumn name="Genlook" bestFor="Built for try-on in production">
    <Point type="pro">Production endpoint, stable contract, breaking changes documented</Point>
    <Point type="pro">Any product type: clothing, shoes, glasses, jewelry, wigs</Point>
    <Point type="pro">9.3s median generation, published, with webhooks</Point>
    <Point type="pro">Credits never expire, $0.08 down to $0.065 at volume</Point>
  </VerdictColumn>
</Verdict>

<ComparisonTable label="02 — Feature by feature" title="Where each API stands." subtitle="Checked against both platforms' public docs and pricing pages.">
  <Row feature="Try-on status" desc="Contract stability" genlook="Production, versioned changelog" competitor="Beta, may change without notice" highlightGenlook />
  <Row feature="Price per try-on" desc="Cost per generated image" genlook="$0.08, $0.065 at 3,000+ credits" competitor="$0.10, plus $0.05 when garment extraction runs" highlightGenlook />
  <Row feature="Credit expiry" desc="What happens to unused credits" genlook="Never expire" competitor="No rollover between billing periods" highlightGenlook />
  <Row feature="Product types" desc="What can be tried on" genlook="Any product type, one endpoint" competitor="Clothing, works best on tops" highlightGenlook />
  <Row feature="Speed" desc="Time to a result" genlook="9.3s median, published" competitor="Not published" highlightGenlook />
  <Row feature="Free start" desc="Trying before paying" genlook="5 free credits" competitor="100 free credits" />
  <Row feature="Scope" desc="What the platform does" genlook="Virtual try-on, end to end" competitor="Background removal, upscale, outpaint, try-on" />
  <Row feature="End-user data" desc="Lifecycle beyond the generation" genlook="User records, deletion API, image auto-expiry" competitor="Result URLs expire after one hour" highlightGenlook />
</ComparisonTable>

<ExamplesGallery title="The part you can't compare on paper." note="Four generations from the Genlook engine on real product photos.">
  <ExampleItem example="dresses-cocktail-mini-dress--freya" href="/for/dresses" />
  <ExampleItem example="streetwear-oversized-hoodie--leo" href="/for/streetwear" />
  <ExampleItem example="denim-high-rise-straight-jeans--nadia" title="High-waisted jeans" href="/for/denim" />
  <ExampleItem example="outerwear-trench-coat--claire" title="Classic trench coat" href="/for/outerwear" />
</ExamplesGallery>

<ProseSection label="03 — The real difference" title="What beta means in production">
Pixelcut is a good image API. Background removal at five cents, upscaling, outpainting, clean docs with an OpenAPI spec, and 100 free credits to start: if your product needs general image processing, it earns a place in the stack, and its try-on price has come down sharply to $0.10 per image.

The try-on endpoint itself still carries the beta label, and its own docs are candid about the boundaries: it "may change without notice", it "works best with top garments", fine details "may not be reproduced perfectly". Add the operational shape, credits that expire each billing period, result URLs that die after an hour, no published latency, and you have an endpoint built for experimentation rather than a product's critical path.

### How Genlook handles it

Genlook's try-on is the product, not a beta wing of one. The contract is stable with a documented changelog, latency is published at 9.3 seconds median, and one endpoint covers any product type, dresses, denim and outerwear as well as tops, plus shoes, glasses, jewelry and wigs. Credits never expire, results are stored rather than evaporating after an hour, and end-user data has a lifecycle: user records, auto-expiring images, and a deletion endpoint for privacy requests. The same API serves storefronts, consumer apps, kiosks and AI assistants alike.

If you need one API for varied image work, Pixelcut is a fine choice with try-on as a bonus. If try-on is the feature your users will touch every day, it deserves an API that treats it as the whole job.
</ProseSection>

<FeatureGrid label="04 — In practice" title="What the Genlook API is tuned for.">
  <Feature title="Production contract" description="A stable endpoint with a documented changelog and breaking-change policy. No beta disclaimer over your critical path." />
  <Feature title="Predictable speed" description="9.3s median per generation, async with webhooks or polling." />
  <Feature title="Any product type" description="Clothing, shoes, glasses, jewelry, hats, wigs: one endpoint covers them all. Not tuned for tops alone." />
  <Feature title="Data lifecycle handled" description="End-user records, per-product try-on stats, a deletion endpoint for privacy requests, auto-expiring images." />
</FeatureGrid>

<Steps label="05 — Getting started" title="Two calls to your first try-on.">
  <Step number="1" title="Create a key" description="Self-serve at platform.genlook.app. New accounts start with 5 free credits." />
  <Step number="2" title="Upload and generate" description="POST the person photo, POST the try-on. Poll for the result or receive a webhook." />
  <Step number="3" title="Go live" description="Credits from $0.08, $0.065 at volume. Building something new? The startup program adds free credits." />
</Steps>

<Faq label="06 — FAQ" title="Questions, answered.">
  <FaqItem question="Isn't Pixelcut's try-on cheaper than it used to be?">
Yes, notably: it now lists at $0.10 per image, down from earlier pricing around $0.50. Genlook is $0.08, or $0.065 above 3,000 credits, and Pixelcut adds $0.05 when its garment extraction step runs. The bigger differences are elsewhere: beta status, tops-focused quality and expiring credits.
  </FaqItem>
  <FaqItem question="What does the beta label actually mean?">
Pixelcut's own docs say the endpoint "may change without notice". For a weekend prototype that is fine. For a feature your users depend on, a contract that can shift under you is a real operational risk, which is why Genlook versions its API and documents breaking changes.
  </FaqItem>
  <FaqItem question="Pixelcut gives 100 free credits and Genlook only 5. Why?">
Pixelcut's credits spread across its whole toolkit, and expire with the billing period. Genlook's 5 free try-ons are enough to run the quickstart on your own product photos, and the credits you then buy never expire.
  </FaqItem>
  <FaqItem question="Can Genlook also remove backgrounds or upscale images?">
No. Genlook does virtual try-on only. If you need general image processing alongside try-on, pairing a dedicated tool for that with a production try-on API is a reasonable stack.
  </FaqItem>
  <FaqItem question="Can I compare output quality directly?">
Yes. Both platforms have free credits; run the same product photos through each. Genlook's gallery above shows unretouched generations, including full-length garments where tops-tuned models struggle.
  </FaqItem>
</Faq>

<CtaBlock
  title="Build try-on into your product."
  description="Self-serve keys, five free credits, and two API calls to your first generation."
  primaryText="Get API keys"
  primaryHref="https://platform.genlook.app"
  secondaryText="Read the docs"
  secondaryHref="/docs/tryon-api/introduction"
/>