ranked on what the terms let you do with the song afterwards, and on how much legal risk you inherit by using it — the two things the demos never mention.
last reviewed 29 jul 2026 · 8 tools tested ·list curated by Onur Ozcanxin
the question this category turns on is not which one sounds best. it is whether you own what comes out, and the answers are worse than most people assume. beatoven's terms state plainly that beatoven owns the copyright in the track you generated, and separately forbid you from releasing it on spotify or apple music at all — you get a licence to sync it into your own video, nothing more. mureka's free tier is the same shape: mureka owns the output, and you get a non-commercial licence to it.
suno's clause is subtler and worth reading twice. paid subscribers get an assignment of 'all of its right, title and interest in and to any output owned by suno' — and then the terms add that suno 'makes no representation or warranty to you that any copyright will vest in any output'. it is assigning you whatever it has, while declining to say that amounts to anything.
legal exposure now differs enormously between vendors, and it is a purchasing consideration rather than gossip. the labels sued suno and udio in june 2024. warner settled with suno in november 2025; universal settled with udio in october 2025 with reported per-generation royalties, and warner followed. sony is the last major still litigating against both. elevenlabs took the other path entirely and licensed merlin and kobalt catalogues before launching, and has not been sued. mureka was sued by musicians in december 2025 and has not settled.
two entries here are not what their name suggests. riffusion no longer exists: it became producer.ai in july 2025, google acquired it in february 2026, and it now runs as google flow music on deepmind's lyria 3. and the open-weight slot is not meta's musicgen, whose weights are cc-by-nc-4.0 — non-commercial only, and which cannot generate vocals at all because vocal tracks were stripped from its training data. the current open pick is ace-step 1.5, under plain mit.
advertisement
1
Eleven Music
the only one that licensed its training data before launching instead of after being sued.
91/100
verdictthe cleanest legal position in the category by a wide margin, and you retain rights to what you make — the catch is what 'commercial use' excludes.
best for
anyone putting generated music into something they sell, who would rather not follow a court case.
price
$6/mo
pricing note
starter is the cheapest tier with commercial music rights; free tier is non-commercial; music costs 900 credits per minute from a shared pool
free tier
yes
price
$6/mo for commercial
who owns output
you retain rights
free tier commercial
not permitted
litigation
none against the product
stems
unconfirmed
elevenlabs signed licensing deals with merlin network and kobalt music group before launching the product, with artists opting in and sharing revenue, and states the model is trained on licensed data only. no copyright suit has been brought against it. every other major vendor here either has been sued or trained on undisclosed data, so this is a genuinely different risk profile rather than a marketing difference.
the terms say you retain all rights in your output. elevenlabs also takes a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable licence to that output to operate and improve the service — worth knowing, though it does not remove your rights. importantly, those rights are not stated to lapse when you stop paying, which several rivals leave ambiguous.
two real limits. the free tier is non-commercial, full stop. and self-serve commercial use excludes film, television and studio games — those need an enterprise agreement. if you're scoring a short film on a $22 plan, you are outside the licence.
pros
+trained on licensed data with merlin and kobalt deals signed pre-launch
+no copyright litigation against the product
+you retain rights, not stated to lapse on cancellation
+vocals via a curated library or your own reference
cons
−free tier is non-commercial only
−self-serve licence excludes film, tv and studio games
−elevenlabs takes a perpetual licence to your output for training
−music consumes 900 credits per minute from a shared pool
mit-licensed, self-hosted, vocals in fifty languages, and a full song in under ten seconds on a 3090.
88/100
verdictthe most permissive licence in the category and the only one you can audit line by line — with no vendor to hold responsible for anything.
best for
developers who want music generation inside their own product without a vendor in the middle.
price
free
pricing note
mit licence with no revenue cap; self-hosted, so the only cost is compute — under 2 seconds per song on an a100, under 10 on an rtx 3090
free tier
yes
price
free (self-hosted)
who owns output
unaddressed — mit covers weights
free tier commercial
permitted
litigation
none identified
stems
unconfirmed
plain mit, no revenue threshold, no attribution requirement, no field-of-use restriction. that is more permissive than stability's community licence, which cuts off at $1m of revenue, and vastly more so than meta's musicgen, whose weights are cc-by-nc-4.0 and therefore non-commercial — a fact that catches people who assume 'meta open-sourced it' means they can ship it.
the capability is not a consolation prize. it generates 10 seconds to 10 minutes of audio, handles lyrics and vocals in over 50 languages, includes a vocal-to-backing-track function, and runs in under 10 seconds on a consumer 3090. the maintainers report it outscoring suno v5 on the songeval benchmark, which is their claim rather than an independent one.
what you give up is a counterparty. there is no terms of service, which means output ownership is formally unaddressed rather than granted — mit licenses the weights, not the content. training data is undisclosed. support, uptime and moderation are entirely yours. for a company that matters; for a developer it may be exactly the trade they want.
pros
+plain mit — no revenue cap, no attribution, no restrictions
+vocals and lyrics in 50+ languages
+under 10 seconds per song on a consumer gpu
+10 seconds to 10 minutes per generation
cons
−no terms of service, so output ownership is unaddressed
two of the three majors have settled and signed deals — the lowest legal risk of the two big generators.
82/100
verdictthe settlements are the product here — universal and warner are now partners rather than plaintiffs — and udio's own pages are the hardest to read in the category.
best for
people who want suno-class output with meaningfully less unresolved litigation attached.
price
unverified
pricing note
pricing page is javascript-rendered and returned nothing readable across repeated attempts; circulating figures are third-party and not published here
free tier
yes
price
not readable
who owns output
user, per help centre
free tier commercial
permitted, with credit
litigation
umg + warner settled; sony live
stems
unconfirmed
universal settled in october 2025 and announced a joint ai music platform for 2026, with reported per-generation royalties to umg of $0.002 to $0.005, content-id obligations and audit rights over training data and generation logs. warner settled similarly. sony is the last major still litigating, and a us fair-use ruling has reportedly slipped to 2027.
unusually for this category, udio permits commercial use on the free tier — its help centre says yes, provided the content doesn't contain copyrighted material you don't own, with free users required to credit udio and paid users not. it states that users own the generated output and udio claims no ownership.
the frustration is verification. the pricing page and full terms of service are javascript-rendered single-page apps that returned nothing but a title to repeated automated reads, so the price, the exact ownership clause, stem export and what happens to your rights after cancellation are all unconfirmed. for a company whose defining feature is now legal clarity, that opacity is an odd choice.
pros
+universal and warner settled and signed licensing deals
+commercial use permitted on the free tier with attribution
+help centre states users own the output
+reported royalty and audit terms give the settlements substance
cons
−pricing and terms pages unreadable without javascript
−sony litigation still live, ruling slipped to 2027
the best product in the category, assigning you rights it declines to promise exist.
80/100
verdictstill the most polished output and the largest ecosystem — attached to the weakest ownership language and two majors who haven't settled.
best for
making finished vocal songs quickly, if you are comfortable with an unresolved fair-use question.
price
$8/mo
pricing note
pro at $8/mo for 2,500 credits, premier $24/mo for 10,000; free tier gives 50 credits a day with no commercial use
free tier
yes
price
$8/mo
who owns output
assigned, with no copyright warranty
free tier commercial
not permitted
litigation
umg + sony live; warner settled
stems
pro and premier
the ownership clause deserves careful reading. paid subscribers get an assignment of 'all of its right, title and interest in and to any output owned by suno', which sounds complete until the terms add that suno 'makes no representation or warranty to you that any copyright will vest in any output'. suno is transferring whatever it holds while explicitly not claiming that amounts to a copyright you can enforce.
the litigation is unresolved in a way udio's largely isn't. warner settled in november 2025, but universal and sony are still suing in massachusetts, suno is running a fair-use defence, and a summary judgment hearing was held in july 2026. a separate action by the american federation of musicians in june 2026 alleges session players on licensed recordings went uncredited.
as a product it remains the leader — fastest route from a prompt to a finished vocal song, stems on pro and advanced splits on premier, and $8 a month is the cheapest paid entry here. the free tier is non-commercial and requires attribution.
pros
+fastest, most polished full songs with vocals
+cheapest paid commercial tier at $8/mo
+stem separation on pro, advanced splits on premier
+largest user ecosystem in the category
cons
−terms disclaim any warranty that copyright vests in the output
−universal and sony litigation still live
−free tier is non-commercial with mandatory attribution
an open-weight model with a licence you can audit, attached to a hosted product whose terms you can't read.
74/100
verdictthe only vendor here publishing a real open-weight licence for music — and the only one where the hosted product's own terms were completely unreadable.
best for
developers under the revenue threshold who want weights they can inspect and self-host.
price
free under $1m revenue
pricing note
stable audio open weights are governed by the stability community license: free commercial use below $1m annual revenue, enterprise licence required above; hosted stableaudio.com pricing could not be read
free tier
yes
price
free under $1m revenue
who owns output
user, per community licence
free tier commercial
permitted under threshold
litigation
individual suit, jan 2026
stems
unconfirmed
the community licence is a genuine document you can read: commercial use free below $1m in annual revenue, an enterprise licence required above it, no using the model or its outputs to build a competing foundation model, and a requirement to display 'powered by stability ai'. that is more restrictive than ace-step's mit and far clearer than the vendors publishing nothing.
the hosted product at stableaudio.com is the opposite. both its pricing and terms pages are javascript-rendered and returned only their titles across repeated attempts, so the consumer product's price, ownership terms and rights after cancellation are all unverified. the community licence governs the open weights, not necessarily the hosted service.
a musician sued stability and audiosparx in early 2026 alleging his songs were used for training despite opt-out requests — a separate matter from the riaa actions, and no major-label suit against stability's music product was identified. stability has publicly floated an opt-in artist payout marketplace.
pros
+genuine open-weight licence you can read and self-audit
+free commercial use below $1m annual revenue
+no major-label litigation identified
+self-hostable rather than dependent on a service
cons
−$1m revenue cliff forces an enterprise negotiation
−hosted product's pricing and terms entirely unreadable
−'powered by stability ai' attribution required
−a training-data lawsuit from an individual musician is live
cheap and prolific — and on the free tier, mureka owns everything you make.
68/100
verdictthe most output per dollar here, from a vendor being sued over its training data, whose free tier hands the copyright to itself.
best for
high-volume paid use where cost per track matters more than provenance.
price
$8/mo
pricing note
basic $8/mo annually for up to 400 songs, pro $24/mo for 1,600 songs with stems and voice cloning; free tier output is owned by mureka
free tier
yes
price
$8/mo
who owns output
mureka on free, you on paid
free tier commercial
not permitted
litigation
sued dec 2025, pending
stems
pro tier only
the volume is real: 400 songs a month at $8, or 1,600 at $24 with stem export and voice cloning that can make any voice — including your own humming — the singer. nothing else here is close on throughput per pound.
the free tier is the trap. mureka's terms state that mureka 'owns all rights, title and interest in and to the output made by you through the service', granting you only a licence for lawful, internal, non-commercial purposes. on paid tiers ownership passes to you with full commercial authorisation — but the free tier is not a trial of the paid product's rights.
in december 2025 american musicians and songwriters sued mureka in the northern district of illinois, alleging it trained on copyrighted recordings without authorisation, with additional dmca and illinois biometric and publicity-rights claims. the case is pending and no liability has been determined. mureka discloses nothing about its training data.
pros
+400 songs a month at $8, 1,600 at $24
+stems, wav and instrumental export on pro
+voice cloning for commercial use on pro
+clear ownership transfer on paid tiers
cons
−free tier output is owned by mureka, non-commercial only
−active us lawsuit filed december 2025, unsettled
−training data undisclosed
−rights after cancellation not addressed in the terms
changed name and owner twice in a year, and its own terms page returns 403.
64/100
verdictgoogle's infrastructure and synthid watermarking behind a product that has been rebranded twice and whose rights documentation we could not open.
best for
people already inside google's ai subscriptions who want watermarked output with provenance.
price
free with a google account
pricing note
paid credits come via a flow music subscription or google ai membership; no price list could be read — the product's own terms page returns http 403
free tier
yes
price
not readable
who owns output
user, per general google terms
free tier commercial
unverified
litigation
none against this product
stems
unconfirmed
the lineage matters because every guide you'll find is about a product that no longer exists under that name. riffusion became producer.ai in july 2025, google acquired it in february 2026, and it relaunched as google flow music in april 2026, rebuilt on gemini and deepmind's lyria 3, requiring an age-verified google account in supported regions.
what google brings is provenance: output is watermarked with synthid, which nothing else in this ranking does, and google's general generative-ai terms state that as between you and google, you retain ownership of outputs, while reserving the right to generate similar content for others.
what we could not establish is almost everything specific. the flow music terms page returns http 403, the product pages are javascript shells, and no flow-specific clause on commercial use, monetisation, track length or rights after cancellation was retrievable. for a google product the documentation gap is surprising, and we won't fill it with press reporting.
pros
+synthid watermarking for provenance, unique here
+google's general terms state you retain output ownership
+free to start with a google account
+built on deepmind's lyria 3
cons
−product terms page returns 403 — rights unverifiable
−renamed and re-owned twice in twelve months
−no readable price list
−commercial use and monetisation terms unconfirmed
keeps the copyright in the track you generated, and forbids you from releasing it as a song.
58/100
verdicthonest and clearly written about being a sync-licensing service rather than a music generator you own the output of — which is also why it ranks last.
best for
background music inside your own video, podcast or game, where a sync licence is all you need.
price
unverified
pricing note
pay per track or subscribe for download minutes; the pricing page returns 404 on every variant we tried, so no figure is published here
free tier
no
price
not readable
who owns output
beatoven, always
free tier commercial
sync-only, all tiers
litigation
none identified
stems
referenced, tier unconfirmed
clause 6.6 of beatoven's terms is unambiguous: 'beatoven shall own and be the copyright owner of your ai music'. you receive a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide right to use the track only synchronised with your own content in your own project. that applies to every download, paid or not — there is no tier where the copyright becomes yours.
clause 6.3(c) closes the other door: you may not permit the track to be performed or distributed via any digital service provider, spotify and apple music named explicitly. so you can monetise a youtube video containing the music, and you cannot release the music.
for its actual purpose — background scoring for video and podcasts — that is a coherent and clearly stated deal, with no royalties owed and a perpetual licence that survives cancellation. it ranks last because this page is about generating music you own, and beatoven is candidly not selling that. we also could not verify pricing: the pricing page 404s on every variant.
pros
+clear, well-drafted sync-licensing terms
+perpetual licence per download, surviving cancellation
+no royalties owed on qualifying use
+no litigation identified
cons
−beatoven retains the copyright in your generated track
−distributing the track to spotify or apple music is prohibited
output rights are the first-class fact on every entry, quoted from the vendor's own terms of service with the clause identified. where free and paid tiers differ — and they usually do — both are stated, because the free tier is where the ownership traps live.
we report whether rights to already-generated tracks survive cancelling a subscription. it is the question buyers ask last and should ask first, and several vendors' terms simply do not address it; where that is the case we say the terms are silent rather than guessing.
litigation is reported factually with dates, parties and current status, sourced to court filings or the vendors' own announcements. we are not lawyers and this is not legal advice — it is a description of which suits are live, which have settled, and what the settlements reportedly involved, because that materially affects who should build a business on which tool.
we publish no audio quality scores. side-by-side listening at this level is taste, our sample would not be representative, and every vendor sounds good on its own demo page. what we compare instead is documented: rights, price, track length, stem export and vocal support.
two vendors' pricing could not be verified. udio's and stable audio's pricing and terms pages are javascript-rendered and returned nothing readable across repeated attempts, and beatoven's pricing page returns 404. third-party figures circulate for all three; we have not published them.