Meshy AI Credit Review 2026: 35 Credits for a 27.4 MB Eggshell

Independent review. I ran both tools on my own accounts, free and paid, with no vendor-provided access or early access of any kind.

I only wanted one thing: a printable Voronoi eggshell, from one picture, without learning to model.

Two names kept coming up when I asked around — Meshy and SupaVoxel. So I ran the same image through both, downloaded both files, and then did the boring part nobody posts about: I looked at what each run actually cost me and what I was going to be hauling around afterwards.

My verdict in 60 seconds — Meshy 58/100, SupaVoxel 91/100.

Subjective scores, this one job, not a lab result. The eight lines that got me there:

• Charged on the meter — Meshy 35 credits vs SupaVoxel 3 credits · Meshy 5/10 · SupaVoxel 9/10 — Meshy's meter moves in much bigger steps per shade than SupaVoxel's does on its own plan; two different plans, two different units, so I'm not turning that into a dollar comparison
• File you carry around — Meshy 27,408,396 bytes vs SupaVoxel 9,044,340 · Meshy 5/10 · SupaVoxel 9/10 — Meshy adds 18,364,056 bytes to every copy you store or send; SupaVoxel ships the same shade in a third of that
• Wait on a phone connection — Meshy 18.3 s vs SupaVoxel 6.0 s · Meshy 4/10 · SupaVoxel 9/10 — Meshy puts 12.2 extra seconds of spinner in front of every visitor; SupaVoxel's file is done before Meshy's is a third of the way down
• Wait on office wifi — Meshy 2.19 s vs SupaVoxel 0.72 s · Meshy 6/10 · SupaVoxel 9/10 — Meshy is still 1.47 seconds slower on every single load; SupaVoxel clears in under a second
• A hundred of them on disk — Meshy 2.74 GB vs SupaVoxel 0.90 GB · Meshy 5/10 · SupaVoxel 9/10 — Meshy adds 1.84 GB to a hundred-model library of identical shades; SupaVoxel's hundred still fits on an old thumb drive
• Bytes a plain print never uses — Meshy 2,826,340 vs SupaVoxel 235,772 · Meshy 4/10 · SupaVoxel 9/10 — Meshy makes you download twelve times the screen-only decoration a single-colour print throws away; SupaVoxel keeps that payload small
• Duration on the record — Meshy not captured vs SupaVoxel 274.715 s · Meshy 5/10 · SupaVoxel 7/10 — Meshy's run left no start-to-finish figure to check, so I can say nothing about it; SupaVoxel's record at least tells you what four and a half minutes bought
• Mesh per byte spent — Meshy 779,020 triangles for 27.4 MB vs SupaVoxel 1,500,000 for 9.0 MB · Meshy 4/10 · SupaVoxel 9/10 — Meshy charges roughly 35 bytes per triangle; SupaVoxel charges about 6 and hands you nearly twice as many

Here's what that adds up to.

Meshy's run put 35 credits on its meter. SupaVoxel's put 3 on its own. Those are two different plans measured in two different units, so that is two facts sitting side by side — not a price, not a saving, not a multiplier.

The bytes are a different story, because bytes are bytes on both sides. Meshy spent 27,408,396 of them on 779,020 triangles. SupaVoxel spent 9,044,340 on 1,500,000.

And 2,826,340 of Meshy's bytes are surface-detail images a single-colour print will never touch.

For this job the file I kept was the one from SupaVoxel. Meshy wins one row that can outrank everything else, and I get to it near the end.

The picture both runs started from — one image, no text prompt on either submission. Whatever Meshy and SupaVoxel disagree about, the input is not it.

What did the two runs actually charge me?

Meshy's task record shows 35 credits for this eggshell. SupaVoxel's shows 3.

Now stop, because this is where every comparison post goes wrong. Those are two separate plans with two separate credit systems. Two different plans, two different units — I'm not turning that into a dollar figure or a "cheaper" claim.

What you can do with it is plan. If your Meshy allowance is a fixed pile of credits per month, 35 per eggshell tells you how many eggshells that month holds. Divide your allowance by 35 on Meshy's side, by 3 on SupaVoxel's. Two different denominators from two different plans — which is exactly why the ratio between them means nothing.

And notice what neither meter tells you: whether Meshy's 35 was one attempt or three. Neither run recorded failures or retries, so if a job had quietly burned credits and restarted, this article would not know. I will come back to that.

From upload to download: what the process looked like

Meshy and SupaVoxel take the same three steps: drop in the picture, pick your settings, wait, download.

Meshy's panel put me on its Image to 3D workflow with the High Detail model at Ultra 2K, texturing on, image enhancement on, multi-view off, no pose rig. That texturing toggle is not a cosmetic choice — it is what puts three images inside the file we are about to weigh.

SupaVoxel's panel asked for different things: five steps, guidance 5.5, background removal on, 256 resolution, single view. I left both close to what the interface offered, because that is what anyone does on a first run.

Then you wait, watch a progress screen, and get a download button. Meshy's flow and SupaVoxel's have the same shape. The difference shows up entirely in what lands on your disk.

Meshy's upload step with texturing switched on. Screens like this prove a step happened — they do not prove a duration or a charge, which is why every number here comes from the task record instead.

SupaVoxel's upload step. Same image going in, same GLB format coming out — only the settings vocabulary differs.

Why a 27 MB model costs you more than you think

Meshy's GLB came out at 27,408,396 bytes. SupaVoxel's at 9,044,340.

Same object. Same source picture. A difference of 18,364,056 bytes.

Unlike the credits, these two numbers are in the same unit, so the comparison is real: Meshy's file is a bit over three times the size.

Here's the part that stings. Divide bytes by triangles and Meshy spent about 35 bytes per triangle. SupaVoxel spent about 6. You are not paying for extra detail — Meshy gave you 779,020 triangles and SupaVoxel gave you 1,500,000.

Part of that is compression: the SupaVoxel file I measured is packed with a scheme called meshopt, Meshy's is not — and SupaVoxel's export menu hands you the original-size GLB from the same run as well, so the compression is a choice you make per delivery rather than a format you are stuck with. But compression does not explain the triangles, and the triangles are what you are printing.

Meshy's file is bigger and thinner at the same time.

Meshy's shade, rendered offline at a fixed camera. This is 27,408,396 bytes on screen.

SupaVoxel's, same camera and lights. 9,044,340 bytes, denser ribs — the file that costs less to move is also the one carrying more mesh.

How long does somebody stare at a spinner?

Say you put the shade on a product page so people can spin it before they buy. Whichever file you picked, Meshy's or SupaVoxel's, this is where it gets expensive.

On a 12 Mbps connection — a normal phone on normal mobile data — Meshy's file takes 18.3 seconds to come down. SupaVoxel's takes 6.0.

That's 12.2 extra seconds of blank spinner, per visitor, every time.

I don't need to tell you what happens to a page that makes people wait 18 seconds for a picture of a lamp. And be clear about what this figure is: bytes × 8 ÷ 12,000,000, assuming a steady connection. Pure transfer. It does not include the handshake, unpacking the file, drawing the first frame, or anything else a phone does after the last byte lands. Real-world waits are longer than both numbers — the 12.2-second gap between them is the part Meshy owns.

Meshy from the front — the first view a shop page loads, and the one that costs 18.3 seconds on mobile.

Even on fast office wifi, Meshy is slower every load

Run the same arithmetic at 100 Mbps and Meshy needs 2.19 seconds against 0.72.

Sounds fine, right?

It's 1.47 seconds, every load, forever. Ten people spin the shade and Meshy has burned 14.7 seconds of somebody's attention that SupaVoxel didn't. A hundred views is two and a half minutes of pure waiting, created by nothing but file size.

Same caveat as before: this is division on the measured byte counts under an assumed steady connection, not a page-load measurement. Nobody timed a real first frame here, on either side.

SupaVoxel from the identical angle — 0.72 seconds of transfer on the same assumed connection, for the model with twice the triangles.

What happens when you need a hundred of these?

This is where file size stops being an annoyance and becomes a bill.

Copy the output a hundred times — a hundred shades, a product line, a library — and Meshy's shelf is 2.74 GB. The same hundred from SupaVoxel is 0.90 GB.

That 1.84 GB gap is what Meshy's export adds to a hundred-model library of the same subject. If anything in your stack bills by the gigabyte, Meshy's share of that bill is three times SupaVoxel's for identical shades.

Read it for what it is: this one file multiplied by a hundred, in decimal gigabytes. It is a capacity budget, not a hundred real runs — no success rates, no time spread, nothing about what a hundred generations would actually cost you in either tool.

Meshy mid-generation. The screen proves the step happened; it does not prove how long it took, and Meshy's clock was never captured.

And a hundred runs on the credit meter

Multiply each meter by a hundred and you get 3,500 Meshy credits and 300 SupaVoxel credits.

Same warning as before, and I'll keep repeating it: two different plans, two different units, not a price ratio. This is two separate budgets sitting next to each other, and it assumes every run charges what this one charged, with nothing failing and nothing retried.

Useful for planning your own allowance. Useless as a comparison. Anyone who turns those two numbers into a percentage saved is selling you something — and the honest answer to "which is cheaper in real money?" is that this run cannot tell you. You would need each plan's actual price per credit, and that is not something one generation reveals.

Meshy's result screen after the run. The 35-credit figure came from the task record, not from reading this page.

2,826,340 bytes you download and never print

Meshy packs 3 textures into its file, and so does SupaVoxel.

For a plain single-colour print, two of those — the surface-bump map and the shine map — are decoration your printer cannot use. They exist so the model looks right on a screen.

Meshy carries 2,826,340 bytes of them. SupaVoxel carries 235,772. That's roughly twelve times the dead weight.

Translate it: at 12 Mbps, Meshy's unusable-for-printing images alone cost you 1.88 seconds of download. SupaVoxel's cost 0.16. You wait nearly two seconds for data that never reaches the plate.

One honest note on how I counted Meshy's 2,826,340: unique images only, colour excluded, because a colour workflow might genuinely want it. And nobody tested whether a given slicer even reads colour — this is about what Meshy hands you, not what your machine does with it.

SupaVoxel's result screen. Its 3-credit line came from the task record — again, different plan, different unit, not a price.

So is Meshy's file mostly textures? No.

I assumed it would be. It isn't.

Meshy's colour image is 1,658,610 bytes against SupaVoxel's 519,966. Add everything up and Meshy carries 4,484,950 bytes of images, SupaVoxel 755,738.

So images are 16.4% of Meshy's file and 8.4% of SupaVoxel's. Which means the other 22,923,446 Meshy bytes are pure geometry describing 779,020 triangles — while 8,288,602 SupaVoxel bytes describe 1,500,000.

Meshy's bulk isn't pictures. It's an uncompressed mesh.

That reframes the whole download. You cannot fix Meshy's file size by turning textures off, because textures were never the problem. Meshy is spending 22.9 MB to say something SupaVoxel says in 8.3 MB, with more triangles.

Meshy from the side. 779,020 triangles, and roughly 22.9 MB of file spent describing them.

What the file weighs once it's actually open

Download size is one budget. Memory is another, and here the ranking flips in Meshy's favour.

Reserve 32 bytes per point and 4 per index — a standard layout — and Meshy's geometry works out to about 22.9 MB in memory against SupaVoxel's 45.7 MB. That is arithmetic on the point and triangle counts, not measured memory use, and it leaves out textures and load-time spikes.

Why the flip? Because compression shrinks a file on disk, not in RAM. Once Meshy's model and SupaVoxel's are both unpacked, the one with 1,500,000 triangles is heavier — and that is SupaVoxel, not Meshy.

What it means for you: for a slicer, irrelevant — it opens one model at a time. For a phone viewer or a game engine with a dozen objects in the scene, Meshy's lighter mesh is the one that fits.

The numbers nobody recorded

SupaVoxel's record says 274.715 seconds from start to finish, download excluded. Call it four and a half minutes.

Meshy's run didn't produce that figure.

So there is no Meshy duration in this article. No "Meshy was slower," no guess based on how long the screen appeared to sit there. Meshy may well have been faster — nothing I have supports a claim either way, and one run wouldn't settle it if it did.

Same for failures and retries: not captured on either side. If you want to know which tool wastes fewer credits on a bad attempt, this is not the article, and one generation each could never answer it anyway.

I'm flagging the holes instead of filling them, because a missing number is the easiest place to cheat.

SupaVoxel mid-generation. The 274.715 seconds came from its task record, not from a stopwatch on the screen.

What none of this buys you

A cheap file is not a printable file.

Nothing in this article tests whether either shade prints. Wall thickness, self-intersection, real slicing, support material, model volume, resin cost, machine success rate — untested on Meshy's file, untested on SupaVoxel's.

So if your question is "which one is production ready", the honest answer from this run is neither, and the next step is yours: pick a height, run a wall-thickness check, look at what your slicer says.

What this run does settle is what you carry, what you wait for, and what the two meters recorded. That is enough to choose between Meshy's file and SupaVoxel's. It is not enough to promise a print.

Where Meshy actually wins

One row, and on the wrong day it beats everything above.

Meshy's main file declares no required extensions. Checkable fact: Meshy's GLB asks nothing special of whatever program you load it into, while the compressed SupaVoxel GLB declares EXT_meshopt_compression and KHR_mesh_quantization, which need a decoder at the other end. And on SupaVoxel's side you switch the export to original size and that decoder question disappears — same run, second file, already sitting in the menu.

The exchange rate, plainly: Meshy charges you 18,364,056 extra bytes, 12.2 extra seconds on mobile and 1.84 extra gigabytes per hundred models, on every copy, whether or not the thing at the other end ever cared.

One caveat on my side: I read what each file declares rather than loading them into a real importer, so I never watched either file succeed or fail in a specific program.

SupaVoxel from the identical side angle. The compression that got it to 9,044,340 bytes is also what puts a decoder requirement on the other end.

Final verdict: Meshy scores 58/100 for this job

Meshy took one line off its meter and returned a 27,408,396-byte file with 779,020 triangles, 18.3 seconds of mobile download, 2.74 GB per hundred copies, and 2,826,340 bytes of maps a plain print never touches.

What Meshy bought with all that bulk is a file that opens anywhere and a lighter load in memory once it does. That's worth something, and it's the whole 58.

Both scores are mine, for this one eggshell, on one Meshy run and one SupaVoxel run. Nothing here ranks Meshy across jobs, and the 35 on Meshy's meter stays what it is: a number on a plan I cannot convert into a number on a different plan.

Use SupaVoxel for this job

Take this as a starting point, not a verdict on your project — run your own picture through both and weigh your own file. A simpler shape, a different setting, and Meshy's byte counts could land somewhere else entirely.

For mine, I kept the 9,044,340-byte compressed one: 6.0 seconds on mobile, 0.90 GB per hundred, 755,738 bytes of imagery — with the original-size GLB from the same run kept for anything that would rather not decode. If you want to try it with your image, that tool is here: https://supavoxel.com

How I tested this

One image, one run on each side. Not a lab study, no averages, no reliability ranking.

Measured: Meshy's GLB and SupaVoxel's, both checked against their hashes, then parsed — file sizes, triangle counts, point counts, texture counts, declared extensions, format and the embedded image byte counts come straight out of them. The credit lines and the 274.715-second duration come from each run's own task record.

Arithmetic, not measured: download seconds assume a steady 12 Mbps and 100 Mbps of effective throughput, with no handshake, decode or render time included. The hundred-copy figures are this one file multiplied by a hundred, in decimal gigabytes, and the hundred-run credit figures assume every run charges exactly what this one charged with nothing failing. Bytes per triangle, the percentage splits and the memory estimate — 32 bytes per point, 4 per index — are division on the measured numbers, not benchmarks.

Missing: neither run recorded failures or retries. Meshy's generation time was never captured. Neither tool's plan price appears here, which is precisely why no credit figure in this article becomes money. And nothing here tests whether either file prints — wall thickness, slicing, support and resin volume were measured on neither side.