It is a count, sorted on a number anybody can verify: how many of the six documents gave a usable answer. It says nothing about which product is better to use, because this desk has used none of them.

Why does a published answer sometimes look worse than a missing one?

Because the column counts whether a question was answered, not whether you will like the answer. The clearest licence clause we read is also the widest one. Read the entry, not the tally.

Is anyone missing from the table?

One name in the catalogue has no documents read yet and stays out rather than being estimated in. Dream Companion is covered on the sibling catalogue site, which tracks it; this desk has not walked it.

How long does this stay accurate?

Until a vendor edits a page. Everything here carries the date it was read, and one of the four documents in this table was last modified in 2024, which tells you how unevenly that happens.

Who answers the questions?

Not which is best — that needs accounts and measurements this desk does not have. This is the one comparison the method supports: how much each of seven vendors is willing to write down.

See it document by document How the walk is run

7 vendors walkedSorted on a countable keyRead 2026-10-19

The tally

Counted from the entries linked in the first column. Each finding there carries the page it came from and the date it was read.
Vendor	Documents answered	The one line worth knowing
OurDream AI	4 of 6	Says in writing that you own what your character generates, then keeps popular public characters alive after you delete your account
Perchance	3 of 6	States its AI plugins keep nothing on the server, and has no terms of service at all
CrushOn AI	3 of 6	Publishes its limits properly, and takes a licence that runs to every other user of the service
JuicyChat AI	3 of 6	Terms last modified in May 2024, and prices you cannot see without an account
Nastia AI	3 of 6	The best-documented of the lot: you keep ownership, the licence back is limited to running the service, and retention is stated with its exceptions itemised
Kalon AI	3 of 6	Clear terms, scoped licence — and a banner saying every AI feature is switched off until further notice
Candy AI	2 of 6	Publishes real retention periods — and discloses human review of de-identified chats, which nobody else here does

Per document

The same six documents, read down instead of across: who answered each one, who did not, and who said something elsewhere that undercuts it. A vendor missing from a row did not have that document opened, which is not a verdict about it.

Answered it means the document settles the question the check puts to it. Did not means it was opened and does not. Undercut elsewhere means another document on the same site says something that narrows the answer.
Document	Answered it	Did not	Undercut elsewhere
Pricing page	CrushOn AI	OurDream AI	—
Terms of service	OurDream AI, Nastia AI, Kalon AI	Perchance, JuicyChat AI	CrushOn AI, Candy AI
Privacy policy	Perchance, Nastia AI, Candy AI	CrushOn AI, JuicyChat AI, Kalon AI	OurDream AI
Content policy	OurDream AI	—	Perchance
Checkout and cancellation	—	JuicyChat AI, Nastia AI	—
Support channel	—	—	Kalon AI

When the paperwork was written

Eight of these documents state a date for themselves. Grouped by that date they stop being a list and become the second finding of this page: the terms that govern one of these products were last written in 2024, before the model line it covers existed, and nothing in them has been touched since.

2024

JuicyChat AI, terms of use 28 months old when read

2025

CrushOn AI, privacy policy 19 months old when read
JuicyChat AI, privacy policy 14 months old when read

2026

OurDream AI, terms of service 1 month old when read
OurDream AI, privacy policy 1 month old when read
Nastia AI, terms v1.0 1 month old when read
CrushOn AI, terms of use 28 days old when read
Candy AI, privacy notice 1 day old when read

Each date is the one the document states for itself. Every line links to the finding it was read off, on that vendor's entry. All eight were read on 20 October 2026, which is the date the ages are counted to.

A date is not a verdict, and a 2026 document is not automatically a good one — Candy AI revised its privacy notice the day before it was read and the notice still discloses human review of conversations. The date tells you something narrower: whether anybody has looked at the paragraph recently.

Verdict

The paperwork splits the category in two

Two of the seven publish a retention period; five do not. Five say you own your output, but only two of those keep the licence they take back narrow enough for that to mean much. One vendor was not running at all on the day it was read. The useful move is to decide which gap you can live with, because there is no entry here without one.

Paid placement

SpicyAI — Discover AI characters with unique personalities. Chat, share stories, or create a companion of your own — with text, voice, images, and video.

Contradicted elsewhere Pricing page. The only vendor read here that publishes its limits and its prices without a sign-in: $6.99 a week, $9.90 a month, $59.88 for twelve months, with 100 images and 10 videos a month on Premium. The same page then states the free allowance twice, as five chat turns on the plan card and ten turns per character in the table, and the Premium allowance twice, as unlimited on the card and 1,000 turns in total in the table.

Published Terms of service. Effective 2 December 2025, with the operator named and a contact address in the document. The user owns what they generate, and the licence running back is perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable and transferable — and extends beyond operating the service to promotion and advertising.

Published Privacy policy. No retention period: the policy gives the factors it weighs instead, which is the same answer six of the eight catalogued vendors give. Chats and user content are used to train the models and are monitored for compliance, and the policy says so plainly rather than burying it.

Contradicted elsewhere Content policy. The community guidelines are the strongest of any vendor read here: eighteen and over, no character presented as younger than that and no aged-up rewrite of one, no sexualised depictions of real people without consent, human and automated review. The public tag list then carries jk, a Japanese abbreviation that denotes exactly the age bracket those guidelines rule out.

Published Checkout and cancellation. Card only, with other methods described as coming. Cancellation any time, with access running to the end of the billing cycle and no further charge — stated on the page where the subscription is sold rather than in a separate document.

Contradicted elsewhere Support channel. A support address is published, which several vendors here do not manage. Two of them, in fact: the terms give one address and the community guidelines give the same mailbox at a different domain.

Go to SpicyAI Go to the Telegram bot

Questions about this comparison

Is this a ranking?: It is a count, sorted on a number anybody can verify: how many of the six documents gave a usable answer. It says nothing about which product is better to use, because this desk has used none of them.
Why does a published answer sometimes look worse than a missing one?: Because the column counts whether a question was answered, not whether you will like the answer. The clearest licence clause we read is also the widest one. Read the entry, not the tally.
Is anyone missing from the table?: One name in the catalogue has no documents read yet and stays out rather than being estimated in. Dream Companion is covered on the sibling catalogue site, which tracks it; this desk has not walked it.
How long does this stay accurate?: Until a vendor edits a page. Everything here carries the date it was read, and one of the four documents in this table was last modified in 2024, which tells you how unevenly that happens.