Verdict
Not checked
A self-hosted file-sync and collaboration platform some organisations stretch into asset-library duty; tagging, batch metadata editing and dynamic tag-based collections are still limited or missing.
Not checked
A developer-facing image and video transformation API and CDN, billed from one pooled credit balance covering storage, transformations and bandwidth together.
Price published
No
Yes
No
Yes
Billed on
No genuine dollar pricing is published. The vendor's package-comparison page lists four tiers: Community Edition (free, open-source, self-hosted), Growth (SaaS, shown only as "Starting at $0 Annually" with a free-trial CTA — no real recurring price disclosed), Advanced and Premium (both "Call for a quote"). No billing unit (per user, per SKU, per asset, per GB) is stated anywhere on the site for the paid tiers.
Subscription per user per year, cheaper at volume
Not disclosed publicly. Plans are differentiated by number of admin users, storage (TB), and number of portals (e.g. Essential: 5 admin users/1TB; Signature: 20 admin users/2TB/3 portals; Premium: 50 admin users/5TB/5 portals); exact per-unit or per-tier prices are not published, visitors must request a consult.
Credits: one credit is 1,000 transformations, or 1 GB of storage, or 1 GB of video bandwidth
Deployment
Cloud, On-premise
On-premise, Cloud
Cloud, On-premise, Hybrid
Cloud
Free plan
No
Yes
No
Yes
Free trial
No
No
No
Yes
Transparency index
Not checked
80%
Not checked
60%
Most common complaint
Not checked
It is a file platform with DAM features rather than a DAM: asset-level metadata and rights are thinner
Not checked
Prices are published for the API but not for the DAM, so the product being compared with a DAM still has no price