Kaiber SuperstudioReviews of kaiber.ai

Love the results I get from using Kaiber, it is exactly what I need and when I have any questions the team is super responsive and always willing to take the time to help answering questions and checking if anything doesn't seem to be working.

What can I say??! JUST OUTSTANDING! Would 100000000% recommend!

great experience and results using Kaiber. Community manager very helpful with tips and advise on how to get the most out of the platform with correct and effective prompting. There is definitely a skill to hone which means the sky is the limit! Thanks Kaiber and especially Phil/XOCYZM for the time and guidance!

Great service and very helpful.

Great platform for AI experimentation. Lots of potential here. Clever implementation of 3rd party services with a professional interface.

wanted to like it but wasn't great

A joke of a website. Why is it so complicated ? Booooooooo

DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY OR YOUR TIME ON THIS SITE!!! I subscribed to Kaiber and within hours realized the platform does not deliver what it promises. Despite clear evidence that the service failed to perform to a reasonable standard, customer support was rude, dismissive, and refused a refund. Save yourself the frustration — avoid this platform. EDIT I love when a company attacks my character when their website doesn't work properly!! yay. I was spoken down to and gaslit by one of your associates, which understandably left me frustrated on top of the frustration of investing my hard-earned money into a new platform that I genuinely wanted to like and support. I raised concerns within two hours of subscribing, provided evidence of materially deficient service, and demonstrated that the same materials produced better results using the same model directly via Luma. Your Terms of Service, Section 3.1, clearly state that refunds are permitted where service delivery is materially deficient . Nowhere do your terms require customers to provide a "perfect" or "expert-level" prompt to qualify for a refund. That is not the standard you agreed to. I acted in good faith, tested the platform promptly, and demonstrated that materially better results were achievable with the same inputs using the same model directly via Luma. The service did not perform to a reasonable standard, and that is the basis of my refund request — not any alleged lack of prompting skill. It is disappointing that instead of addressing the substance of the complaint, you chose to deflect and blame the customer. I stand by my experience and my review. EDIT 2 You are clearly showing that you did not properly review the evidence I submitted. I made two creations on Luma: one using Ray 2 and one using Ray 2 Flash, the same model i used your platform. The Ray 2 Flash creation made directly on Luma was a usable result. In contrast, I generated nine outputs on your platform — and not a single one was usable. Your Terms of Service (Section 3.1) state that refunds are permitted where service delivery is materially deficient. They do not state that refunds are conditional upon achieving a specific level of prompt "foundation" or technical expertise. You have repeatedly implied that I am a beginner or lack understanding of AI tools. Suggesting that a customer’s dissatisfaction stems from incompetence rather than addressing the facts is a direct attack on their credibility and character. This is not professional behavior. I acted promptly, submitted clear evidence, and requested a refund within hours of subscribing. Offering credits after poor initial results does not substitute for delivering a product that functions to a reasonable consumer standard from the outset. It is a shame that instead of taking responsibility for deficiencies in your platform, you continue to shift blame onto the customer. Edit 3 I provided a Dropbox link containing both my Luma creations and my Kaiber creations, clearly showing the comparison between outputs. The Ray 2 Flash model — the same model you use via API — produced significantly better results on Luma's own platform. Further, I can see from Dropbox activity logs that the file showing the Luma Ray 2 Flash creation was viewed twice by someone on your team — once on April 24 at 7:42 PM and again on April 25 at 4:32 AM​​. Therefore, your claim that I never submitted this evidence using the same model on both sites is simply inaccurate. In all honesty, as I mentioned in previous emails, I genuinely wanted to like your platform. I have been working with AI for two years and have greatly enjoyed exploring its creative potential. However, the rising costs of using multiple platforms led me to seek a more consolidated solution. When I heard about Kaiber, I was hopeful it would meet that need. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed with the quality of the generations produced through your platform compared to direct use of the same models elsewhere. I provided clear evidence of this, but from the beginning, my concerns were met with a condescending tone and dismissive attitude, which made an already frustrating situation even worse.