HeadshotPro

By Minel Gunesoglu, founder. No shoot was bought and no photographs were uploaded, so nothing below reports whether the portraits come out looking like you. What was read, on 4 September 2026: the pricing page, four help-centre articles, the Terms of Service, the refund page, the free-tool page and the Trustpilot profile the vendor invites its customers to. Each figure carries the date it was read, and where two of those documents disagree, both are quoted.

A buyer choosing between the $29 and the $39 plan is deciding two things: how many pictures come back, and what happens when they miss. This vendor publishes clear answers to both. It publishes more than one answer to the second.

Three pages state that the free retry begins at the $39 tier. A fourth, in the same help centre as one of the three, states that all three standard packages include one. Nothing on any of them acknowledges the other, and a shopper comparing the two cheapest plans is comparing them on a difference the seller's own documentation does not settle.

The resolution figure has the opposite problem. It exists, it is specific, and it is not where a shopper would look. The pricing page never prints a pixel count for the entry tier; it says only that 4K downloads belong to the top plan. A help-centre table gives the entry tier as "Standard (2048px+)", which is above the 1080p line the scoring here uses and well under 4K.

None of this is unusual in a product this size, and none of it is presented here as anything more than what the documents say on one day. Documentation drifts, pages are updated at different times, and nothing on this page claims to know which answer the vendor means. What it does is put the four statements next to each other, with links, so the decision is made on all of them rather than on whichever page a shopper happened to open.

What $29, $39 and $59 Buy at HeadshotPro, Tier by Tier

Entry is a single payment, not a subscription. The pricing page's own subheading reads "Pay once, no subscription", and it states the mechanism rather than only the claim: "No seat licenses. You buy credits, not seats, so nothing renews in the background."

Two rows in that table come from different documents than the rest, and the difference matters enough to state. Prices, counts, credits and turnaround are on the pricing page. The resolution column is from the help centre's "Credits and Pricing" article, because the pricing page carries no figure for the first two tiers.

Thirty images at $29 puts this between its two scored neighbours on both axes: BetterPic sells 20 at $35 and Aragon AI sells 40 at the same $35 list. On price per delivered image, the $29 plan is the cheapest of the three.

Checkout prices are quoted in local currency, and the vendor lists which: "USD, EUR, GBP, CAD, AUD, CHF, INR, BRL, IDR, PLN, SGD, and CNY."

HeadshotPro's Entry-Tier Resolution: the 2048px Figure Is in the Help Centre, Not on the Pricing Page

The pricing page's comparison matrix has a row for it. The row is labelled "4K resolution downloads" and its single value is "Executive only", with no pixel count beside Basic or Professional anywhere on that page. Read on its own, that tells a shopper what the $29 tier is not.

The help-centre article "Credits and Pricing" gives the number. Its package table lists Basic as "Standard (2048px+)", Professional as "Premium, higher realism" and Executive as "4K ultra-realistic".

Both statements are true at once, which is worth saying plainly before anyone reads a contradiction into it: 2048 pixels is above 1080p and below 4K's 3840. The plus sign is the vendor's, and it makes the figure a floor rather than an exact dimension. A floor is enough for the question this card asks, because the scoring rung turns on whether the entry tier clears 1080p, and 2048 clears it on any reading of which edge it describes.

What it is not is an upscale. The help centre draws that line itself in "Downloading Headshots": "Standard photos are delivered at the resolution produced by the AI model", while upscaling is a separate action that "costs one photo credit". The 2048px floor is what the model generates, and the card scores it as such.

For a LinkedIn portrait or a company directory this is comfortably enough. For a printed programme or a poster crop it is not, and that is what the $59 tier is selling.

This is the second time in this category that the deciding figure sat somewhere other than the pricing page. Aragon publishes its entry resolution inside an information tooltip while the visible card label reads only "Standard resolution". A shopper who compares pricing pages and stops will compare these two products on a row that neither page fills in.

Does the $29 HeadshotPro Plan Include a Free Retry? Four Pages, Two Answers

A retry is not an edit. The help centre describes it as a full reshoot: "Confirming the reshoot deletes all existing photos, resets your photo slots, and returns your model to the onboarding state. Your photo credits are restored to the original package amount." It expires 14 days after the shoot finishes. For a buyer whose first batch comes back wrong, it is the difference between starting again and paying again.

Here is what the four documents say, all read on 4 September 2026.

The pricing page's comparison matrix: "Free redo Pro & Executive, 14 days".

The pricing page's FAQ: "Professional and Executive include a free redo within 14 days, and every package is covered by the 100% money-back Realism Guarantee."

The help centre, "Credits and Pricing": "1 free redo (Professional and Executive) — restart the generation with new selfies if you are not happy with your initial results".

The help centre, "Regenerating Headshots": "All standard packages (Basic, Professional, Executive) include 1 free retry."

Three to one, and the two help-centre articles contradict each other. This card takes the majority position and the commercial document, and scores the $29 tier as having an edit allowance and no free retry. The alternative would have been to take the single most favourable sentence, from the one source of the four that is not part of the offer, and it would have moved the composite up by roughly a point and a half.

For a buyer the practical answer is smaller than the discrepancy: ask before paying, in writing, and keep the reply. If the retry is included at $29 the vendor will confirm it in a sentence, and if it is not, the $10 difference to the $39 plan buys it outright along with 20 more images and a faster turnaround.

HeadshotPro Refund Policy: One Window, Two Routes and Two Different Tests

The contract states the route with the clearest test. Terms of Service, Section 4: "Individuals requesting a refund within 14 days of purchase are eligible for a full refund if the customer has not downloaded any AI-generated photos."

Both conditions are facts rather than judgements. One is a date. The other is a state the vendor records: the help centre notes that when you save a picture, "The download is tracked, and the photo is marked as downloaded in your account." The refund page confirms the same two conditions and adds a self-serve path, saying that most refunds started there "will be processed within 1 business day".

The help centre publishes a second route with a different test. Its refund article promises "at least one profile-worthy photo from every shoot" and says that if you do not get one, "you receive a full refund — no questions asked". That path runs through a support ticket, mentions no download condition, and is decided by the vendor: "The team reviews it and, if eligible, processes a full refund within 48 hours."

Neither document mentions the other. The reading that makes both true is that the self-serve path covers a buyer who has downloaded nothing and the reviewed path covers a buyer who has, and that is offered here as a reading rather than as something either page states.

Three limits belong beside all of this, and none of them makes the window less real. The same contract section says fees are "non-refundable, except as required by law", with the refund clause as the exception to it. The guarantee ends the moment any photograph is saved, which matters because the vendor is candid about the hit rate: its refund page says "you will get some 'wacky' photos in your order" and that "most photos won't be keepers". And one refund is a lifetime allowance, because customers who have had one "acknowledge and agree that any subsequent purchases of the Service are final and non-refundable".

Practically, that ordering is the whole trick. Look at the full set in the browser first, decide, and download nothing until you have.

HeadshotPro Photo Credits: What Six Buys, and What More Costs

Credits are the currency for changing a picture after the shoot: a new backdrop and outfit combination costs one, background removal on a download costs one the first time, and an upscale costs one. Six of them come with the $29 plan, 26 with $39 and 46 with $59.

When they run out there is a published price list, which sits in the help centre rather than on the pricing page: 10 for $3.99, 30 for $8.99, 50 for $12.99. Those packs are "purchased per model and apply only to that specific headshot session", so they do not bank against a future shoot.

They also do not lapse. The pricing page says "No subscription, and your credits never expire", the comparison matrix carries "Credits / packages never expire" as its own row, and the help centre states it a third time. Of the three products scored in this category, this is the only one whose documents answer the expiry question at all, which is why the purchase-terms row on this card is built from four components where its neighbours' are built from three.

What HeadshotPro's Terms Say You Own, and What You License Back

The output clause is an assignment, which is the strongest form this takes. Section 5: "HeadshotPro assigns to you all of its right, title, and interest (if any) in and to the AI Headshots generated from your User Content". Section 6 says it again from the other direction, noting that the vendor's own protected materials exclude "AI Headshots resulting from your use of the Service, which, as between you and HeadshotPro, are owned by you."

The licence to use the service names commercial use with no tier attached: "for both your personal and commercial use". Since the assignment also attaches to the service rather than to a plan, the free headshot is covered by the same words as the paid ones.

Two limits sit inside the same clause. The assignment does not cover pictures generated for other people, because "the AI Headshot Generator may produce similar outputs for other users, and our assignment does not apply to outputs generated for others". And what you upload runs the other way, under a licence that is broad and carries the right to sublicense: "a worldwide, non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, fully paid right and license (with the right to sublicense through multiple tiers)".

That inbound licence is over your selfies, not over your headshots, so it does not cut against the assignment. It is still the clause worth reading before uploading, and it is the same shape as the one Aragon's contract carries.

On indemnity the contract runs one way. Section 14 has the customer defend the vendor "from and against every claim brought by a third party", and a search for the word across the full document returns three matches, all inside that section, all pointing the same direction. That is where most of this corpus sits, and it is scored as the ordinary position rather than as a failing.

HeadshotPro Privacy: the Training Ban and the 30-Day Deletion of Your Uploads

Section 5 is unusually direct for this category: "Neither your User Content (input photos) nor your AI Headshots (outputs) will be used to train or retrain our generative models or third-party models."

Section 8 reaches the same place by a longer road. It grants the vendor rights over data derived from what you upload, "except to the extent such data, content, and information derived from the User Content constitutes photographs uploaded to the Service by users", and then states the position again: photographs will not be used to train for generative AI "or marketing purposes unless we receive your prior written consent for such uses". The carve-out and the plain sentence agree with each other.

The same section publishes a retention period, which most vendors in this corpus do not: "Input photos are automatically deleted 30 days after your gallery is generated (or sooner if you delete them), and you may request earlier deletion at any time."

Nothing on this card scores any of that, because there is no privacy axis in this scoring model and inventing one to fit an available fact would be the wrong order of operations. It is reported because it is a documented difference from the neighbouring card, and it is worth stating precisely rather than sharply. BetterPic's FAQ says "Your photos are used solely to train our AI model", and its refund clause turns on whether "the AI has not been trained with your input". That describes a model fitted to one customer in order to make that customer's pictures, which is how these products work, not a general training corpus. What differs is that HeadshotPro's contract rules the practice out for its own generative models in either direction, inputs and outputs alike, and publishes a deletion period alongside it.

Where a HeadshotPro Dispute Is Heard, and the Legal Route the Contract Sets

The operating company is Singaporean. The contract opens by naming it: "Headshot Pro Photography Pte. Ltd., operating as HeadshotPro".

Disputes default to arbitration rather than court, and the notice at the head of the document is in capitals: "BY ACCEPTING THESE TERMS, YOU AND HEADSHOTPRO ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY OR TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY CLASS ACTION OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING." That arbitration "is subject to Singapore law and will be administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)".

Opting out is possible and the method is postal. A letter has to reach the company's Singapore address "within 30 days after the date that you agree to these Terms". If arbitration is opted out of or struck down, a separate clause sets California law and "the state courts and federal courts located within Santa Clara County, California".

Those two clauses govern different things and are not in conflict. For a buyer outside the United States the practical point is only that the default path is an arbitration seated in Singapore, and that the window to decline it is 30 days and runs by post.

One more fact about the document itself: its own stamp reads "Last Updated: 4/09/2024". That is either September or April of 2024 depending on which convention the page is using, and nothing on it disambiguates. Either reading puts the contract roughly two years behind the pricing page it governs.

HeadshotPro Scores 87.4 Here: Which Cell Rests on What

The card was computed on 4 September 2026 from four rows, and two of them carry a named criterion rather than the axis they sit under.

The delivery row is built from the 2048px floor, 30 images at entry, the commercial licence that reaches every tier, and an edit allowance without a retry. The purchase-terms row is built from published per-tier pricing, a one-time payment with no minimum, credits that do not expire, and a money-back guarantee that covers the entry package by the vendor's own words. The commercial-terms row reads the indemnity direction, the output assignment, the free tier's commercial position and the refund posture.

Where this card sits relative to its neighbours is a consequence of those cells and nothing else. Hub ordering here is computed from the composite at build time, so a tool that later scores higher takes the position without anybody rewriting a sentence.

The Likeness Question HeadshotPro Cannot Be Scored On, and Why

No row above measures whether the portraits resemble you. That is the question a buyer actually has, and it is the one this site refuses to answer for any product in this category.

The reason is the state of the evidence rather than a policy preference. Nothing neutral ranks these products against one another. There is no blind-vote board for portraits, the numbered tests that do circulate were each commissioned by a firm with a product in the same race, and this engine will not read a study whose publisher has a stake in its result. The academic literature on face generation is about research models rather than the services people buy.

So the capability row is renamed on the card, labelled for the question it answers, and the number under it should be read as what the $29 plan hands over rather than as a verdict on the pictures. If an independent measurement appears, the row takes its own name back.

Reading HeadshotPro's 4.7 Trustpilot Rating Next to Its Sample Size

The Trustpilot profile carried 4.7 across 3,547 ratings when it was read on 4 September 2026, taken from the page's own structured data rather than the headline. The distribution runs 83% five-star, 12% four, 2% three, under 1% two and 2% one.

Two disclosures come with it, both from Trustpilot rather than from the vendor. The profile has been claimed since February 2024 and is marked "Paid Trustpilot subscription", which is a commercial relationship between seller and platform. And the reviews are gathered by invitation: the platform's own line on the profile is "Asks customers to review". Neither is scored. Both change how the number should be read, because a rating collected by invitation and a rating collected from volunteers are not the same measurement.

There is a category-level fact here that no single card can show, and it is more useful than the rating itself. The three products scored in this category rate 4.7 apiece, on samples of 6,789, 3,547 and 1,026. Three products, three sample sizes an order of magnitude apart, one number. All three collect by invitation. On this evidence the consumer rating is not the row that separates these tools, and a shopper choosing between them on star ratings alone has nothing to choose with.

The distributions do differ slightly and are the more informative figure. One-star share runs 1%, 2% and 3% across the three, and all three have a real middle rather than the hollow shape that shows up when a rating is thin.

One small drift worth noting because it shows the number is live: the vendor's own pricing and refund pages both printed "4.7 · 3,546 reviews" on the same day the profile read 3,547.

HeadshotPro Reviews on Reddit: Three Comments, Two Years Old, One Thread

Reddit was reachable for this sweep on 4 September 2026, which it had not been for earlier categories on this site, and the result is worth reporting mainly for its size.

One thread on Reddit is devoted to this product. It was posted on 25 August 2024, it is now locked, it counts eight comments and three of them still render. A reader should weigh that against 3,547 invited ratings on Trustpilot and draw the obvious conclusion: the consumer record here is deep on the platform the vendor invites people to and close to empty where nobody was invited.

What the three say is mildly favourable. One is second-hand, relaying that a relative compared three tools and rated this one most realistic. One is first-hand and dated, and it corrects a competing service's older review: "the results are much better now then they were in 2023 when you shot your Instagram video." That comment is itself two years old now, so it carries the same caveat it was making.

The third comment is from a company selling a rival headshot service, which it says openly in the same sentence it uses to warn about exactly that: "most replies you'll get with this type of post will be these companies commenting under aliases saying there are better options (their service of course)..." Both halves of that are reported here because both are true of the thread it appears in.

The more informative thread does not mention this product by name in its title at all. In a general careers subreddit in February 2026, somebody who had used two of these tools including this one wrote that "the biggest difference wasn’t the brand, but the input photos. When I uploaded random selfies, bad lighting, results were weird." Another in the same thread described the output as a mixed bag and gave the practical version: "The trick is taking way more source photos than you think you need and hoping the AI nails it on a few."

That is three comments scored 1 or 2 apiece. It is not a measurement and nothing here reaches the score. It is what the open record contains, and the reason it is printed is that the number above it is 3,547.

Two Other Headshot Cards Here, and How HeadshotPro's Entry Tier Differs

The resolution row is the one to read first, because it decides what the pictures can be used for, and it is the row where all three vendors publish something different in a different place. BetterPic prints 4K on the tier card itself. Aragon puts 896 × 1088 in a tooltip. HeadshotPro puts 2048px+ in a help-centre table.

The refund row is where the three separate most sharply. BetterPic's full refund requires that no model has been trained, so a buyer who has actually seen a finished shoot is past it. Aragon's own pricing FAQ describes its refunds as case-by-case. This one runs after the shoot has been generated and viewed, and withholds nothing, provided nothing has been saved.

Where the $29 plan gives ground is the middle tier of everything. It is not the cheapest per image only because it is the largest pack; it is not the highest resolution; and the free retry that its two rivals resolve one way or the other is the row its own documents leave open.

The Checks Worth Doing Before You Pay HeadshotPro's $29 Price

How the pictures turn out is the one thing no page can settle in advance, this one included.

What can be checked before paying is everything else, and three things here are worth the five minutes. Ask whether the free retry applies to the $29 plan and keep the answer in writing, because the seller's own pages give two answers. Decide whether 2048 pixels is enough for what the picture is for, since the number is real but it is not 4K and it is not on the page you will be reading. And plan the order of operations around the refund: look at the whole gallery first, download nothing until you have decided, because saving one picture closes the self-serve window on all of them.

The free tool is the cheapest test available. It hands over one HD headshot with no sign-up and no card, which is a small sample of the same model, and the contract's commercial permission covers it along with everything else.

Every number above was read on 4 September 2026 and kept as a saved copy: the pricing page, four help-centre articles, the Terms of Service, the refund page and the Trustpilot profile. Two of this card's rows are labelled for a question other than the one their axis normally asks, and the reason is set out under the score. How the scoring works, and the claims this site will not make, are on the methodology page; who writes it is on the other.