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.
Not checked
A developer-facing image and video transformation API and CDN, billed from one pooled credit balance covering storage, transformations and bandwidth together.
Not checked
Price published
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Billed on
Subscription per user per year, cheaper at volume
Consumption-based credits, sold in monthly tiers ($25–$500/mo self-serve, custom above that). Credits are spent on Management (2 credits/GB/month for stored assets), Delivery (1 credit/GB bandwidth), and Transformation (variable by operation). Per-credit rate drops as plan tier rises ($0.25 down to $0.12, monthly billing; slightly cheaper on annual commitment). Each plan also states an implied storage/bandwidth cap in GB.
Credits: one credit is 1,000 transformations, or 1 GB of storage, or 1 GB of video bandwidth
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.
Deployment
On-premise, Cloud
Cloud
Cloud
Cloud, On-premise, Hybrid
Free plan
Yes
No
Yes
No
Free trial
No
No
Yes
No
Transparency index
80%
Not checked
60%
Not checked
Most common complaint
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
Not checked