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.
An enterprise digital asset management platform for newsrooms, publishers, museums, agencies, and manufacturers to organize and distribute digital assets.
An enterprise brand-asset DAM built for controlled distribution to many consumers of assets, that needs a permanently staffed administrator and slows down on large files.
A digital asset management platform for enterprises, agencies, museums, and nonprofits, paired with in-house consulting and data-migration services.
Price published
Yes
No
No
No
Billed on
Subscription per user per year, cheaper at volume
Not disclosed publicly. Pricing page shows three tiers (Starter, Advanced, Ultimate) all gated behind "Request a quote", billed annually; no per-user, per-GB, or credit figures are shown, so the actual billing unit cannot be confirmed from the vendor's site.
Modular packages, quoted per customer
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, On-premise
Cloud
Cloud, On-premise, Hybrid
Free plan
Yes
No
No
No
Free trial
No
No
No
No
Transparency index
80%
Not checked
0%
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
No figure anywhere on the pricing page, so the order of magnitude is unknowable before a call
Not checked