An agency’s DAM has to do something a single brand’s DAM doesn’t: keep several clients’ assets apart, let people outside the agency log in to approve or download something, and survive a roster of client contacts that changes every quarter. None of the twenty-five vendors here bill “per client” as a line item. The closest thing to it is a flat price per account, which means adding a client’s third reviewer costs nothing extra. Only four vendors in this pool \u2014 Razuna, Filecamp, ImageKit and Uploadcare \u2014 actually publish that price; the other fourteen require a form and a call before you can compare.<\/p>\n
The data also surfaces a distinction worth checking before assuming a vendor fits: some platforms are built for agencies to buy and run, others are built for a brand to buy and then hand a permissioned door to its agency. Frontify’s own buy-case is framed around a brand’s internal teams sharing with “external agencies” \u2014 the brand holds the contract, the agency is a guest. MediaValet’s buy-case, by contrast, names agencies directly as the buyer, built around not charging per seat as client rosters grow. Canto’s data flags the opposite risk: its dont_buy_if calls out agencies and retailers needing many editor, not just viewer, seats for outside collaborators \u2014 worth confirming before signing if clients need to upload, not only approve.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Twenty-five platforms in this catalogue serve agencies, but only four publish a price \u2014 and the real split is per-seat billing versus a flat account fee.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"footnotes":"","faq":[{"question":"Do any of these DAM platforms charge per client instead of per user?","answer":"None bill \"per client\" as a distinct line item. Filecamp and Razuna charge one flat price per account regardless of user count, which has the same effect \u2014 adding a client's reviewer doesn't change the bill. MediaValet also states it doesn't charge per user, though it doesn't publish a figure to check that claim against."},{"question":"Which vendor is built specifically with agencies in mind?","answer":"MediaValet's own buy-case names \"agencies, distributed marketing teams, external partners\" directly, citing per-seat DAM pricing as the problem it solves. The price itself isn't published, so the actual saving compared to a per-seat competitor can't be verified before requesting a quote."},{"question":"Can external clients get edit access, not just view or download?","answer":"Check before assuming yes. Canto's data explicitly flags a lack of \"many editor (not just viewer) seats for external agencies\/retailers\" as a reason not to buy \u2014 a real limitation if client contacts need to upload or edit assets rather than only approve them."},{"question":"What's the difference between a DAM an agency buys and one it just uses as a guest?","answer":"Frontify's buy-case is framed around a brand's internal teams sharing with \"external agencies\" \u2014 meaning the brand is typically the buyer and the agency is a permissioned guest. If an agency intends to be the actual purchaser and admin, confirm who holds the contract before assuming fit."},{"question":"Is there a DAM here for agencies doing high-volume templated campaign production?","answer":"Storyteq is built for \"fast, template-driven production of localized\/personalized video and banner ads at scale.\" Its own data flags that core DAM functions \u2014 search, metadata, rights governance \u2014 are secondary to that production tooling, so skip it if asset management is the primary need."},{"question":"Which platform has the best published price for an agency on a budget?","answer":"Razuna scores highest in this pool (90%), with a flat per-account price, no per-user fee, and the price is actually published. Filecamp is the next clearest option \u2014 also flat-fee with published tiers \u2014 though its 20-100GB storage ceilings get tight with a video-heavy client library."},{"question":"Does on-premise deployment help an agency keep multiple clients' assets separate?","answer":"Not by itself. On-premise is about where the data is hosted, not how it's partitioned by client. Razuna and Daminion both offer on-premise deployment, but neither vendor's data specifies per-client sandboxing \u2014 permission structure for separating clients has to be checked independently."},{"question":"What should an agency ask before signing with an unpublished-price vendor?","answer":"Fourteen of the [count of=\"here\" words=\"1\"] vendors in this pool don't publish a price. Ask directly what actually moves the number: adding client seats, adding storage, or adding a new client project \u2014 since agency margins depend on knowing the true incremental cost per client, not a headline figure."}],"checked_date":"2026-08-07","sources":[{"statement":"Pricing page publishes a free tier at 500 GB and $99\/mo for unlimited users, stating no per-user fees and no hidden charges","source_name":"Razuna \u2014 Razuna pricing page","url":"https:\/\/razuna.com\/pricing","checked":"2026-08-06"},{"statement":"Pricing page publishes three monthly and annual figures and states unlimited users on all plans; the thirty-day trial requires no card","source_name":"Filecamp \u2014 Filecamp pricing page","url":"https:\/\/filecamp.com\/pricing\/","checked":"2026-08-06"},{"statement":"Pricing page publishes no tiers and no figures, and states unlimited users with no per-user fees","source_name":"MediaValet \u2014 MediaValet pricing page","url":"https:\/\/www.mediavalet.com\/pricing\/","checked":"2026-08-06"},{"statement":"Product page states pricing is customised to the organisation and offers a demo request; a trial is mentioned","source_name":"Acquia DAM \u2014 Acquia DAM pricing page","url":"https:\/\/www.acquia.com\/products\/acquia-dam","checked":"2026-08-06"},{"statement":"Pricing page describes a monthly-active-user model and publishes no figures; no trial is mentioned","source_name":"Frontify \u2014 Frontify pricing page","url":"https:\/\/www.frontify.com\/en\/pricing","checked":"2026-08-06"},{"statement":"Pricing page shows two tiers marked Price on Application and publishes no amounts","source_name":"Storyteq \u2014 Storyteq pricing page","url":"https:\/\/www.storyteq.com\/pricing","checked":"2026-08-06"}],"kicker":"Catalogue \u00b7 By industry","fact_checker":0,"reading_time":0,"revisions":[],"seo_title":"DAM Software for Agencies and Studios \u2014 Compared 2026","seo_description":"[count of=\"here\"] DAM platforms serving agencies compared on client-portal access, per-account vs per-seat billing, and published pricing. Source-grounded, no marketing claims.","noindex":false,"facet_axis":"verticals","facet_value":"agency","what_matters":"The single fact that decides most of this shortlist is whether a vendor bills per seat or per account. Agencies gain and lose client-side reviewers constantly, and a per-seat model punishes that churn every renewal. A flat account fee (Filecamp, Razuna) removes that risk but usually caps storage, which video-heavy client libraries can outgrow fast. The second fact is who the portal is actually for: a branded download link is not the same as a two-way approval workflow, and \"external sharing\" on a pricing page can mean either. The third is who's the buyer \u2014 several platforms here are bought by a brand to grant its agency limited access, not by the agency to run its own multi-client operation, and that changes who should be reading this page.","watch_out":"Fourteen of the [count of=\"here\" words=\"1\"] vendors here don't publish a price, so the true cost per added client account can't be checked before a sales call.\nCanto's own dont_buy_if names agencies and retailers needing many editor (not just viewer) seats for outside collaborators as a poor fit \u2014 check if client contacts need to upload or edit, not just approve.\n\"External sharing portal\" varies by vendor: some mean a branded download link, others a full commenting and approval workflow. Ask which one is on offer before buying it for client sign-off.\nFrontify and similar platforms are typically bought by the brand, not the agency \u2014 if the agency is meant to be the buyer and admin, confirm who actually holds the contract seat.\nStoryteq's DAM functions \u2014 search, metadata, rights, governance \u2014 are stated as secondary to its templated production tools. Don't buy it expecting a full asset library.\nOn-premise options (Razuna's enterprise tier, Daminion) hide their own price behind a form, which complicates comparing a self-hosted option against a published cloud tier.","how_to_choose":"Count how many distinct clients need separated, branded access, then check if pricing is per-seat or flat-account \u2014 agency client rosters turn over often.\nConfirm whether the \"portal\" is a passive share link or a two-way approval and comment workflow, if client sign-off is part of the process.\nAsk directly whether external client-side users can be given editor rights, not just viewer rights \u2014 several vendors in this pool restrict that.\nWork out whether the DAM needs to keep each client's brand assets and permissions cordoned off from the others, or if simple folder separation is enough.\nGet an actual number before signing. Only Razuna, Filecamp, ImageKit and Uploadcare publish price in this pool; everyone else requires a quote to compare.","criteria":[{"name":"Per-account vs per-seat billing","why":"Agencies gain and lose client-side reviewers constantly; a flat per-account price avoids renegotiating the contract every time a client adds a stakeholder.","weight":"high"},{"name":"External client-review portal","why":"Client sign-off is central to agency workflow. A permissioned, branded portal for people outside the agency matters more here than internal search polish.","weight":"high"},{"name":"Multi-client asset separation","why":"One agency account often serves several client brands at once; check whether permissions actually cordon off each client's library by default.","weight":"medium"},{"name":"Published pricing","why":"Only four of [count of=\"here\" words=\"1\"] vendors in this pool state a number. Without one, an agency can't model true cost per client project before committing.","weight":"medium"}],"picks":[{"vendor":2233,"verdict":"Highest score in this pool (90%) and the cleanest fit for a cost-sensitive agency: one flat price per account, no per-user fee, and a client portal feature, with the price actually published.","caveat":"On-premise is only available in the enterprise tier, whose price isn't published, and the vendor has a thin independent review base to lean on before committing."},{"vendor":2202,"verdict":"Flat monthly fee with unlimited users and client-facing branded sharing named directly in its own buy-case \u2014 built for agencies where most client contacts only log in a few times a month.","caveat":"Storage tiers run 20-100GB; a video-heavy client library outgrows that quickly, and subfolder-level permission granularity is flagged as a weak point."},{"vendor":2199,"verdict":"The only vendor in this pool whose buy-case names agencies, distributed marketing teams and external partners directly, built around not charging per seat as a client roster grows.","caveat":"Price isn't published, so the \"unlimited users\" claim can't be checked against an actual figure before a sales call."},{"vendor":2205,"verdict":"Names external sharing portals directly in its buy-case, aimed at agencies managing enterprise client accounts that need governed, taxonomy-heavy metadata.","caveat":"Cost depends on four unpriced variables at once \u2014 organisation size, users, storage and feature set \u2014 and it scores lowest of the client-portal picks (20%)."},{"vendor":2207,"verdict":"A governed single source of truth built to be shared with external agencies \u2014 but the buy-case frames the brand as the purchaser, with the agency as a permissioned guest.","caveat":"Budget sits in the $15K-50K+\/yr range and belongs to the brand, not the agency; MAU-based pricing has no published figure to verify against."},{"vendor":2237,"verdict":"Built for agencies producing localized or personalized campaign creative at volume, with template-driven production and storage bundled together.","caveat":"Its own data states DAM functions \u2014 search, metadata, rights, governance \u2014 are secondary to the production tooling. Skip it if asset management is the primary need."}]},"silo":[18],"class_list":["post-2260","collection","type-collection","status-publish","hentry","silo-software"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/picajet.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection\/2260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/picajet.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/picajet.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/collection"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/picajet.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection\/2260\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2266,"href":"https:\/\/picajet.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection\/2260\/revisions\/2266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/picajet.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"silo","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/picajet.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/silo?post=2260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}