What comes back

Output: resolution, watermarks and what happens to the file

The search is about the output. What the output actually is, and where it goes next, is the part nobody puts on the pricing page.

See the services Common questions

Short answer

The search is about the result, and that is the paradox of this category: the services write almost nothing about what they hand back. Not one of the six publishes an output resolution for a still image, not one commits in writing to a delivery time, and not one advertises itself as a service without restrictions. The promise that there are no limits does not live in their documents — it lives on third-party pages paid per registration.

Here is what the label announces set against what is actually written down, and the point where the commercial question ends and the legal one begins. The catalogue by price and conditions is in the front page of this guide.

What comes out the other side

The delivered file: the little that is written down

Four facts define a result — resolution, watermark, format and how long the file lives — and the six leave nearly all of them blank. This table collects the only parts they do publish.

Service	What it declares about the result	What it does not say
Undresswith	The only one putting a number on the file: encrypted for at most 24 hours, then deleted. Inputs are capped at 20 MB in JPG, PNG, WebP and AVIF.	What size a still image comes back at. No page mentions it, neither the tariff nor the terms.
Ainudez	The only one with written ceilings for video: up to 720p, clips of five or seven seconds, at 50 to 300 credits by resolution and duration.	Nothing about still images, and no deletion period: its documents use the phrase "as long as reasonably necessary".
Deep Undress	Publishes its input limits: JPG, PNG, WEBP and BMP up to 20 MB, MP4 or MOV under 50 MB, and only the first 20 seconds of a clip.	What happens to the result: one of its screens says nothing is stored at all, two others state a period of 72 hours, written as three days in the task history — and the promise is never reconciled with the period.
WaveSpeed	Warns that the per-execution price rises with resolution and parameters, which makes quality a multiplier on the charge rather than something included.	No deletion period at all. Uploaded material is additionally listed as training data that may contain sensitive information.
UndressHer	Works on photographs and advertises no video. States that its model training uses synthetic data rather than user images.	No written period for the incoming file or the result, and no resolution figure anywhere.
Pornworks	Nothing verifiable: its terms, privacy policy and tariff do not open from outside.	Everything, including who a complaint about an image would be addressed to.

The row missing from all six is the same one: output resolution for a still image. It is exactly the figure that would let two services be compared before payment, and it is the only one none of them publishes. The practical consequence is that the on-screen preview almost always looks better than the file that ends up downloading, and the only verification available is the one you perform afterwards, by opening the file properties.

The same blank covers the question people ask second: whether an unpaid result carries a watermark, or arrives blurred, and whether removing that costs again. No document from any of the six says so in either direction. The 2019 program did watermark: a large mark across the free build, and a "FAKE" stamp in the corner of the $50 one. Today's services simply do not address it.

Why the same defect is far more visible once the frame moves, and what the length limits have to do with what a clip costs, is a separate page.

What they declare they block

None of them advertises itself as a service without restrictions

Four of the six describe concrete moderation mechanisms, one describes only the procedure that follows a complaint, and the sixth does not let a document be read. All of this is their own assertion: how a filter behaves in practice cannot be checked from outside.

With a mechanism described

Undresswith describes automatic filters against child abuse material, a model estimating age and gender, human review within 24 hours, and reporting to the US centre for missing children. It requires written consent from anyone appearing in the material.
UndressHer says it blocks images of minors and of public figures, and sets a default threshold of twenty years for processed photos. It requires adulthood on entry.
Deep Undress rejects material its filter flags as depicting a minor, and requires a tick-box acknowledging that processing somebody else's image without permission may be illegal before anything runs.
WaveSpeed expressly forbids in its rules the creation of non-consensual nudity and of material involving minors, with account suspension as the consequence.

With the counterweight written alongside

Another clause in the same WaveSpeed contract warns that the service may generate pornographic content, that the company does not monitor its models' outputs, and that it is not answerable for them.
The UndressHer file announces four policies that are still unpublished, among them age verification and child protection. An age requirement that never explains how it is checked is a box that ticks itself.
The Deep Undress checkbox verifies no permission at all: it records that the service gave a warning. In a later claim it works against the person who ticked it, not for them.
Ainudez describes no advance filter. What it publishes is the procedure afterwards: 48 hours to take down a reported non-consensual intimate image and five business days to process the complaint, with separate mailboxes for abuse and for appeals.

Read together, the two columns separate two things the label blurs. One is moderation before the fact, which four services describe and none allows anyone to audit. The other is the procedure afterwards, which only two turn into written deadlines. A service can have the second without the first, and one with neither also has nobody to receive a report. Which publishes what, row by row, is in the six services side by side.

Where the label lives

Four kinds of page use it, and none of them processes anything

The promise that there are no limits does not appear in the services' documentation because they are not the ones writing it. It is written by the pages paid to send you there, and each of them is paid differently.

The affiliate review
Paid per registration, it supplies precisely what the services withhold: an output resolution, a delivery time, a row of before-and-after samples. None of those figures comes from a document anyone can open, because the page printing them never opened one either.
The gallery and the forum
Here the results are on display, and that is exactly why they prove nothing: the files were uploaded by visitors, so no one can say which service produced them, at what price, after how many attempts, or whether the person in the frame ever knew.
The resale channel
Sells keys and premium access for a one-off charge that is almost always irreversible. What is offered does not belong to the seller, and the real service can cancel it the moment it is detected.
The freshly registered clone
It carries no documents at all, which makes it the only one of the four free to promise anything about a result without contradicting itself. It lasts weeks, and nothing you were told at the old address travels to the new one.

Where the line is

Five things worth being clear about before following a link

Four come from the services' own documents and one from Philippine law. All five apply equally to someone arriving out of curiosity and to someone arriving to buy.

The prohibition that contradicts itself

WaveSpeed has the clearest case, and it is inside a single set of documents. One clause forbids creating non-consensual nudity and material involving minors, with account suspension. Another warns that the service may produce pornographic content, that the company does not monitor its models' outputs, and that it is not responsible for them. The rule exists on paper; prior review does not.

This is not a rhetorical trap, it is the shape of the business: it rents out models made by other companies per execution, and its terms call them third-party offerings it is not a party to. Whoever runs one also accepts the model author's conditions, which they never negotiated and rarely read.

Age thresholds that do not line up

The figures the six publish do not agree with each other and, in one case, do not agree with themselves. The WaveSpeed terms require users to be eighteen, while its privacy policy — drafted for a platform "designed for business professionals" — commits only to not collecting data from children under thirteen. Between the two numbers there are five years with no written policy.

UndressHer sets a default threshold of twenty years for processed photos and requires adulthood on entry, yet its own file announces four unpublished policies, among them age verification. An age requirement that does not describe how it is checked ends up written in the one document where it could have been more than a formality.

What Philippine law says

Here precision matters, because the Philippine framework has layers that apply differently. Section 12 of the Safe Spaces Act of 2019 names, as gender-based online sexual harassment, the uploading and sharing without the victim's consent of any media containing photos, voice or video with sexual content, and any unauthorised sharing of a person's photos online. Section 14 sets prisión correccional in its medium period or a fine of ₱100,000 to ₱500,000, or both. That provision is the one drafted broadly enough to reach altered and fabricated material about an identifiable person.

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 punishes copying, selling, distributing, publishing or broadcasting intimate images of a person taken without consent, with three to seven years and the same fine range; its text turns on an image captured of that person, which is why how far it stretches to a fully synthetic picture is a live question rather than a settled one. A separate page sets out what RA 9995 actually covers and how the Cybercrime Prevention Act raises every one of these penalties by one degree when ICT is used. There is no standalone deepfake statute here as of 2026; bills have been filed, and filed bills are not law.

Why the name survives

The program that produced the word was withdrawn in 2019 and never distributed again. What remained was a search term with steady demand, and that is what the pages in the section above reuse: they do not sell a technology, they sell a word people type. A tag appended at the end serves the same purpose, because it widens the query without promising anything verifiable.

Hence the content appearing under those combinations is almost always collected rather than produced, and the addresses hosting it rotate every few weeks. The site at the top of that search today may not exist next month, and its replacement has no obligation to honour anything you paid the previous one. For the person whose face is in that inventory the churn costs more than it costs a buyer: each rotation moves the material to a host that has no record of the complaint sent to the last one, and the removal work starts again from zero.

With the rules in view

Three services that publish their restrictions

These are the three whose usage rules and procedures can be read before an account is created. They are their own assertions; compliance cannot be verified from outside.

1Takedown deadlines

Ainudez

Its takedown policy sets 48 hours to remove a reported non-consensual intimate image and five business days to process the complaint, with a dedicated abuse mailbox, according to its own documentation.

Open site
2Moderation described

Undresswith

Describes automatic filters, age estimation, human review within 24 hours and reporting to the US centre for missing children, and requires written consent from anyone appearing in the material, according to its own documentation.

Open site
3Registered companies

WaveSpeed

The only one with registered companies and public addresses, and its rules forbid non-consensual nudity in writing — while admitting it does not monitor its models' outputs, according to its own documentation.

Open site

The "Open site" buttons are affiliate links: a purchase on the other side earns this desk a commission at no extra cost to you, and it changes nothing here. Nothing above is a measurement of output quality — we processed no images and opened no accounts.

Common questions

About the label and its consequences

Answered with what holds up: each service's documents and the text of the Philippine statutes in force.

Is there a service that declares it has no restrictions?

None of the six. Four describe filters or express prohibitions, one publishes takedown deadlines, and the sixth publishes no readable documents. The promise appears on third-party pages paid per registration, not in any service's terms.

What resolution do they deliver?

None of the six publishes it for a still image, and none shows examples paired with the source photo. For video there are written ceilings: the Ainudez tariff stops at 720p with clips of five or seven seconds. For everything else there is one check left, and you perform it — open the properties of the file you were sent.

Does the result come back with a watermark or blurred?

None of them states it in writing, in either direction. The 2019 program did: a large mark on the free build and a "FAKE" stamp in the corner of the $50 one. On today's services the only available verification is opening the downloaded file.

Is a filter nobody audits worth anything?

As a citable commitment, yes; as a guarantee, no. Undresswith is the most detailed — automatic filters, age estimation, human review within 24 hours — and even so nobody outside can measure its accuracy. A described, unaudited filter beats none only because it gives you something to hold them to.

Does ticking the permission box protect me?

No. The Deep Undress box acknowledges that processing somebody else's image without permission may be illegal, and that record proves the service warned you, not that you had permission. In a claim it works against the person who ticked it.

Is producing an image like this a crime in the Philippines?

Where an adult is depicted, sharing it without consent is reached by the Safe Spaces Act's online harassment provision and, where an intimate image of that person is copied or distributed, by the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act; the Cybercrime Prevention Act raises the penalty by one degree. Where a child is depicted the position is entirely different: the Anti-OSAEC Act covers computer-generated material explicitly. This page is editorial, not legal advice.

Why do pages with this label change address so often?

Because their asset is the search term, not the domain. Registering a new one costs little, and none of those sites has documents, user accounts or history to move. A service holding a customer balance behaves the other way round: it has to keep one address for people to come back to.