Verdict
A cloud portfolio and image-storage platform for individual photographers, with client galleries and built-in print/licensing sales.
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 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.
A brand-management platform built around a single, always-current source of truth for guidelines, logos and templates, aimed at brand teams working with internal staff and external agencies.
Price published
No
Yes
Yes
No
Billed on
Quote-only. Priced per named "Library Seat" (2-5 seats depending on tier, custom for Enterprise) plus a storage allotment per tier (1TB-5TB, custom for Enterprise) and a cap on "Advanced Integrations" (0 to unlimited). Unlimited invited/contributor users and unlimited Social Content Publisher seats included on all/most tiers. Annual or monthly billing toggle shown on the pricing page, but no dollar amounts are published — all tiers show a "Get Pricing" CTA to a demo/sales call.
Subscription per user per year, cheaper at volume
Flat price per account — users are not a billing unit
Monthly active users
Deployment
Cloud
On-premise, Cloud
Cloud
Cloud
Free plan
No
Yes
No
No
Free trial
No
No
Yes
No
Transparency index
Not checked
80%
70%
30%
Most common complaint
Not checked
It is a file platform with DAM features rather than a DAM: asset-level metadata and rights are thinner
Storage ceilings are modest next to enterprise platforms, so large video libraries outgrow the tiers quickly
The MAU model favours occasional users, but there is no figure to verify that with