A mixed plan table with no starting line
Two house generations and several licensed models appear on one plan table, in the same type, with no row marked as where a project starts. The plan wording acknowledges that the menu mixes this company's models with other makers' and does not settle which one runs by default. As of 2026-09-22.
| What the page is asked | What Luma publishes | What that leaves open |
|---|---|---|
| Is a starting tier stated | No row on the table is marked as one | House and licensed lines look identical |
| Is the house half distinguished | The plan wording mentions other makers | Individual rows carry no marking |
| How many house generations appear | Two, both on the same table | So a version default would matter here |
| What the licensed rows imply | A default could belong to another maker | Which would move the exposure outward |
Inclusion rule. Filled when the entry's own public page says which model a new project starts on, or when a single-model menu makes the answer follow from the list having one line. Order. The absence first, then what the table does distinguish.
1An unmarked default on a mixed table is the worst case
If the starting line is a house model, the exposure belongs to this company. If it is a licensed one, a new customer's untouched work depends on a maker they have not heard of. The page does not say which.
That is a larger gap than an unstated default on a single-maker menu. The question is not just which version but whose schedule, and both answers are missing from the same blank cell.
2Two house generations make the question live
Where one house line exists, a version default is close to meaningless. With two on sale, a default decides which of them most delivered work came from, and therefore how much material a change to either reaches.
The register records both generations on the entry page and records this column as empty. Those two facts together are the finding: the menu is visible and its behaviour is not.
3The plan wording is an acknowledgement, not an answer
Describing a plan as covering this company's models alongside other makers' tells a reader the menu is mixed. It does not tell them which half they land in without choosing.
Read with the succession reading for this entry, the pattern is consistent: the page is candid about the mixture and silent about every consequence of it.
- How the plan describes the menu it sellsPlans are described as covering Luma models alongside models from other makers
4Sources
Read from the plans and pricing page on lumalabs.ai, 2026-09-22. The whole entry is on Luma, and the column it sits in is on Default tier. Same column, other entries: Runway, Adobe Firefly.