Tripo AI Review 2026: 55 Credits for One Tank, 5,500 for a Batch

Independent review. I ran both tools on my own accounts, free and paid, with no vendor-provided access or early access of any kind.

My verdict in 60 seconds — Tripo 57/100, SupaVoxel 91/100

One photograph of a main battle tank, one generation on each product, same day, default settings. Tripo charged 55 credits. SupaVoxel charged 3. That is 18.3×, and the honest part of this article is what the 55 credits buy: the Tripo model is genuinely flatter on its armour plates — flatness RMS 0.363 mm against SupaVoxel's 0.516 mm — and its mesh is cleaner for Blender work. What the 55 credits do not buy is more geometry, a price shown before you upload, a per-transaction ledger, or any relationship between the fee and the difficulty of your subject. Tripo spent the same ~1.95 million triangles on this tank that it spent on a chibi figurine.

Here is the scorecard for the bill, not the mesh.

• Credits for one usable model — Tripo 3/10 (55) · SupaVoxel 10/10 (3) — 18.3×
• Credits for a run of 100 — Tripo 3/10 (5,500) · SupaVoxel 10/10 (300) — 5,200 saved
• Price visible before you upload — Tripo 2/10 (button reads Generate ↪, no number) · SupaVoxel 10/10 (Generate (3 credits), unchanged after upload)
• Geometry the fee actually buys — Tripo 4/10 (1,931,963 triangles, a fixed allowance) · SupaVoxel 9/10 (2,786,054, 44% more)
• Metered switches on a paid run — Tripo 2/10 (Clean Topology ×2, Generate in Parts ×1, 8K Texture ×1) · SupaVoxel 10/10 (none)
• Reference images per generation — Tripo 4/10 (one slot) · SupaVoxel 10/10 (five, same 3 credits)
• Per-transaction spend record in-product — Tripo 2/10 (a balance number, and the menu did not open) · SupaVoxel 8/10 (the price is printed on the button and the balance moves by exactly that)
• Raw wall clock, typical — Tripo 6/10 (median 163.5 s over ten subjects) · SupaVoxel 8/10 (median 133.6 s, faster on 7 of 10) — SupaVoxel is usually faster
• Raw wall clock, predictability — Tripo 9/10 (135–189 s, a 54-second spread) · SupaVoxel 3/10 (100–867 s, a 767-second spread) — Tripo is far more predictable, and this tank at 867 s is the case that proves it

Part by part, what is wrong with Tripo's economics on this job: the price only appears after you have uploaded; the fee is flat while the output is flat too, so a tank and a figurine cost 55 credits for the same 1.95M triangles; three switches are rationed on a paid account, two of which address the exact complaints this test surfaced; the file you get back is 64.84 MB, so a batch of 100 is 6.48 GB of download; and the in-product record of what you spent is a single balance number. For a workshop that makes tank models one at a time or a hundred at a time, use SupaVoxel.

The switch that decides how clean your topology is, is a metered trial. The button that costs 55 credits is always available.

Price discovery, in the wrong order

On Tripo the generate button reads Generate ↪ before you upload. No number. Drop the tank photo in and it becomes Generate 55. You learn the price of the job after you have done the work of preparing the input.

• Button before upload — Tripo "Generate ↪" · SupaVoxel "Generate (3 credits)"
• Button after upload — Tripo "Generate 55" · SupaVoxel "Generate (3 credits)" — unchanged

Five reference slots at the same 3 credits is not a garnish on this job. The input photo shows only the left front three-quarter of the tank — the right side, the rear and the back of the turret roof are simply not in the frame. Tripo charges 55 credits to invent that from one image. SupaVoxel takes four more angles for the same 3.

Charged on submit, before you have seen anything

The moment you press Generate on Tripo, the balance drops: 695 before, 640 after, and the card starts counting — "Generating... 185s". You have paid 55 credits and the viewport is showing you a purple "View Your Model" instruction overlay rather than a model.

The 55 credits do not buy more geometry

This is the line that makes the pricing strange rather than merely expensive. For 55 credits Tripo returned 1,931,963 triangles. For 3 credits SupaVoxel returned 2,786,054 — 44% more. Per triangle that is 0.0285 Tripo credits against 0.0011 of SupaVoxel's, a 26× difference in what a credit buys as geometry.

• Triangles for the fee — Tripo 1,931,963 for 55 · SupaVoxel 2,786,054 for 3
• Vertices — Tripo 1,029,151 · SupaVoxel 1,498,519
• Triangles per credit — Tripo 35,127 · SupaVoxel 928,685 · 26×

Tripo's output is a flat fee for a flat allowance

Across ten different subjects run the same week, Tripo's triangle counts landed between 1,896,372 and 1,996,779 — a spread of 5.2%. Ten subjects, one number. SupaVoxel's outputs over the same ten ranged from 945,492 to 2,786,054, a spread of 146%.

A tank is not a chibi figurine and does not need the same allowance, but Tripo bills 55 credits for the allowance either way. That is the structural complaint: the fee is flat because the product is flat, and the subject you brought has no influence on either side of the transaction.

What you rented rather than bought

Three switches on Tripo carry a trial counter, and they are live on a paid account with 695 credits in it:

• Clean Topology — Trial ×2, off by default — the topology on the delivered file: 19 boundary edges, winding inconsistent
• Generate in Parts — Members Only, Trial ×1, off
• 8K Texture — Members Only, Trial ×1, off

Two of those three address problems this very test measured. SupaVoxel's Advanced Options panel has no counters on it at all: Inference Steps 5, Guidance Scale 5.5, everything on the Hobbyist tier available, nothing greyed, nothing marked Members Only.

One tank, end to end, in money and minutes

• Credits — Tripo 55 · SupaVoxel 3 · 18.3×
• Raw wall clock, this tank — Tripo 167 s · SupaVoxel 867 s · one run each; over ten subjects the medians are 163.5 s and 133.6 s
• Download — Tripo 64.84 MB · SupaVoxel 15.79 MB
• Repair before slicing — Tripo patch 19 holes + recalculate normals · SupaVoxel split 100 non-manifold edges
• Resin at 120 mm — Tripo $3.04 · SupaVoxel $2.47

The speed rows split, and both halves matter. Neither product prints a completion timestamp, so every figure here is me polling the page.

This tank's own pair is one run each: Tripo 167 seconds, SupaVoxel 867 seconds — about 14.5 minutes, the slowest run of the twenty in this test by a wide margin. I have no explanation to offer you for it, because the product offered me none, and I am not going to build a theory on one run.

Across all ten subjects the picture is the opposite of what this tank suggests, and both sentences have to be said together.

SupaVoxel is usually faster. Its median run was 133.6 seconds against Tripo's 163.5, and it came back first on seven of the ten subjects. Tripo is far more predictable. Every one of its ten runs landed between 135 and 189 seconds — a 54-second spread — where SupaVoxel ran from 100 seconds to the 867 you see above, a spread of 767.

So: bet on SupaVoxel for the next single job and you will usually win. Promise a client a delivery time and Tripo is the one you can promise against. This tank is exactly the run that makes the second sentence real — 867 seconds is 6.5× SupaVoxel's own median on the same settings, and nothing in the product warned me it was coming. Ten runs each is a sample, not a statistic; I am telling you what my twenty runs did, not what the products do.

So the trade, priced: on this tank Tripo's 700 seconds of head start cost 52 extra credits, and the file that arrives still needs a hole patch and a normals pass before a slicer will take it. On seven of the other nine there was no head start to buy.

A batch of 100 tanks

This is where the per-unit difference stops being a rounding error.

• Credits for 100 — Tripo 5,500 · SupaVoxel 300 · 5,200 credits saved
• Total download — Tripo 6.48 GB · SupaVoxel 1.58 GB · 4.91 GB less
• Resin at $35/L — Tripo $304.00 · SupaVoxel $247.00 · $57 saved
• Repair operations — Tripo 200 (a patch and a normals pass each) · SupaVoxel 100
• Serial generation time — Tripo ≈3.8–5.2 h · SupaVoxel ≈2.8–24.1 h, on the ten runs I measured

A hundred tanks costs Tripo users 5,200 more credits and 4.91 more gigabytes. The time row nobody gets to claim: 3.8–5.2 h against 2.8–24.1 h is an overlap, not a winner. SupaVoxel's fast end finishes a full hour before Tripo's fast end; its slow end takes five times Tripo's slow end. If the batch has to be done by a deadline, that width is the argument for Tripo, and it is the only argument for Tripo on this page. For most workshops 5,200 credits is the bigger number.

The receipt you do not get

I clicked the credit balance in Tripo's top bar to read a transaction history. The menu did not open — the page after the click is pixel-identical to the page before it. So the in-product record of this purchase is one number in a corner, and every per-transaction cell in the source report for Tripo is left blank rather than guessed at.

There is a 30-credit movement on this Tripo account I could not attribute — the submission charge of 55 matches exactly (695 → 640), and a later reading showed 610, while a model that is not from this test appeared in the same account's asset list. The most likely explanation is another generation on the shared account. I do not have a transaction statement, so I am not calling it anything else, and the cost of this case stands at 55 credits.

Two dismissals before you see the thing you paid for

After Tripo finishes there is a "View Your Model" instruction overlay across the viewport. Dismiss it and a Guide layer follows with five tutorial videos. Two layers between a 55-credit purchase and the purchase.

Credit where it is due: Free Retry ×3 is a real concession — a bad result on Tripo does not cost another 55.

Where SupaVoxel came out worse

Three places. The SupaVoxel run for this tank took 867.4 seconds — 14.5 minutes, the slowest of the twenty runs in this test by a wide margin, with nothing on screen explaining it. My first attempt crashed in the browser before submitting — nothing was charged, but it is an attempt that happened. And SupaVoxel's result page delivers GLB with no direct STL path, so a print user converts once.

Final verdict: Tripo scores 57/100 on the bill

Tripo's 57 is held up by two things: a wall clock that never left the 135–189 second band on any of my ten runs, and Free Retry ×3. Everything else on the ledger runs against it. 55 credits against 3 for one tank. 5,500 against 300 for a hundred. A price that appears only after upload. A fixed 1.95M-triangle allowance that does not move with the subject you brought. Three rationed switches on a paid account. One reference image slot against five. 6.48 GB of batch download against 1.58 GB. And a spend record that is a balance number in a corner, from a menu that did not open.

The trade in one line: Tripo's predictability — never past 189 seconds, on any subject — costs you 52 credits per model, 49.06 MB per download, and a hole patch before you can slice. It does not buy you speed; SupaVoxel's median run was 30 seconds quicker.

Which one I would use for this job

Generate the tank at supavoxel.com: 3 credits instead of 55, 300 instead of 5,500 for a batch of a hundred, the price printed on the button before you upload anything, five reference images at the same fee, no metered switches on the panel, and 2,786,054 triangles instead of 1,931,963. One axis goes the other way and it is worth naming: Tripo never took longer than 189 seconds on any of my ten subjects, where SupaVoxel — faster on seven of them — produced this tank in 867. If you need to promise someone a delivery time more than you need the credits, that is the case for paying 52 more.