Verdict
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.
A modular, metadata-heavy DAM aimed at large organisations with IT capacity to manage taxonomy, sold through quote-based pricing with on-prem and private-cloud options.
An open-source DAM, CMS, and PIM platform combining asset, content, and product management for mid-to-large enterprises in banking, insurance, and retail.
A team file library billed as a flat monthly fee with unlimited users, aimed at organisations where most people only need to download an approved file a few times a month.
Price published
Yes
No
No
Yes
Billed on
Subscription per user per year, cheaper at volume
A modular model — you pay for the modules you take
Cloud service: billed by storage capacity (GB) plus which optional modules you select; user accounts are unlimited/uncapped. No public price list — pricing is obtained via a configurator/calculator or by requesting a quote. On-premise/hosted deployments use Free, Standard, and Enterprise license editions (feature-gated), also quote-only. A non-commercial Free Edition exists with no disclosed price.
Flat price per account — users are not a billing unit
Deployment
On-premise, Cloud
Cloud
Cloud, On-premise
Cloud
Free plan
Yes
No
No
No
Free trial
No
No
No
Yes
Transparency index
80%
10%
Not checked
70%
Most common complaint
It is a file platform with DAM features rather than a DAM: asset-level metadata and rights are thinner
The pricing page works as a lead form rather than a price list
Not checked
Storage ceilings are modest next to enterprise platforms, so large video libraries outgrow the tiers quickly