Lovart credits reset monthly, top-ups last 366 days: Sume's wallet?
Lovart's FAQ: plan credits reset each billing cycle, no rollover; top-ups last 366 days. Sume top-ups last 365 days; its plans carry no credits.

Lovart's own FAQ says monthly plan credits last for the current billing cycle and do not roll over, annual plans reset credits every month, and top-up credits are valid for 366 days from purchase. Sume works the other way round: its plans carry no credit allotment to lose, and wallet top-ups carry a 365-day expiry, one day shorter than Lovart's top-ups. If you hate watching a monthly balance evaporate, the difference is in where the money sits, not in the number of days.
What exactly does Lovart's FAQ say about expiry?
The FAQ text on the page did not include plan prices or credit amounts in what I could read, so this post makes no per-credit price claim for Lovart.
| Credit type | Stated rule |
|---|---|
| Monthly plan | Valid for the current billing cycle; resets on the next billing date; unused credits do not roll over |
| Annual plan | Credits reset monthly; unused credits from the previous month do not carry over |
| Top-up credit packs | Valid for 366 days from the date of purchase |
| Renewal | Subscription renews automatically at the end of each billing cycle |
How does Sume handle the same questions?
Sume's public pricing page lists plans by access and concurrency: Free, Pro at $40 a month, Startup at $120 and Scale at $400. It does not list monthly credit allotments. Instead, generation and API calls are charged at each model's published USD rate against one wallet, and the dashboard can start a Stripe-backed top-up. Billing docs describe the dashboard as showing plan status and the available balance.
In the code on main, a completed top-up creates a credit lot with an expiry 365 days after it is credited. The public API exposes the resulting balance at GET /v1/balance and the usage ledger at GET /v1/usage.
Which design fits an uneven month?
A plan whose credits reset each cycle is a use-it-or-lose-it deal: a slow month wastes allowance, a busy month forces a top-up. Top-up packs avoid that on both vendors, since each keeps its credit for about a year. On Sume the subscription fee buys access and concurrency (4 jobs on Pro, 8 on Startup, 20 on Scale), and the spend sits in a wallet that is yours for 365 days.
That favors bursty work: a campaign month, a seasonal launch, a one-off batch of clips. It favors Lovart's plan structure less only if you generate steadily enough to use each month's allowance in full.
What should I do before committing either way?
Write down the number of generations you made in your last three months, the largest and smallest. If the smallest is under half the largest, a reset-every-cycle allowance will waste money in some month. Then buy a small Sume top-up (the minimum is $10), run real jobs, and read GET /v1/usage to see what each job cost before you size a larger one.
Sources
Related posts
More in Comparisons
- Topview 180-second avatar videos vs Sume 60-second jobs: cost
Topview lists a 180 s avatar cap on every plan; Sume jobs run 4 to 60 s. Three chained Standard jobs for a 180 s script cost $33.12 without a product image.
- Sume vs Argil: AI avatar video and video agents compared
Argil makes AI-avatar and story videos with a chat agent, Director; Sume is a video agent with a multi-model API. Avatars, API, pricing, and limits compared.
- Sume vs fal: a generative media API or a video agent platform
fal runs 1,000+ image, video, and audio models behind one API. Sume adds a video agent, Formats, and avatars to a multi-model API. How the two surfaces differ.
- HeyGen alternatives with an API: price units, limits, and fit
HeyGen alternatives with an API: Synthesia, Creatify, Argil, Arcads, and Sume compared by price unit, API shape, limits, and live vs rendered avatars.
Written by Sume