Compare
Clipwright vs AgentMedia
Same per-second rate, different engines. Compare the frame size, the time to a finished clip, and whether clip length depends on your plan.
Two tools, one rate, different deliverables
Clipwright and AgentMedia solve the same problem and charge the same rate per second of finished video. That parity is intentional on our side, so the choice is not about discounts.
What separates them is what lands in your folder when the run finishes, and what it costs you when it does not.
Different engines, different output
The two products are built on different generation stacks, and most of what follows comes from that rather than from anyone's product decisions.
Their pipeline runs on general video models with their own lip-sync layer on top. Ours runs on a vendor built specifically for audio-driven avatars, with the composition done afterwards. Neither approach is the correct one in the abstract, but they do not land in the same place.
Where it shows up is frame size. A measurement of their path found a smaller vertical frame than the one Clipwright returns, and the table above carries both numbers and the date we checked. We are not calling that a broken promise; a general video model has its own ceiling, and that ceiling is theirs.
Clipwright returns 1080 by 1920 by default, with other resolutions on request. Check both yourself before deciding, because it is easy to check. Render one clip on each and compare the files.
What you buy, and what happens when it breaks
They sell a monthly allowance with a plan behind it. We sell a pack of credits that sits there until you use it.
The difference shows up between campaigns. An allowance has a clock on it, so a quiet month is a month you paid for anyway. A pack does not care how long you wait.
Two more things worth knowing before you compare line items.
Billing starts when the vendor accepts the paid render of your clip, and not before. A run that breaks earlier costs nothing. A run that breaks because of us costs nothing either, even when we have already paid the vendor, because we do not charge you for work we stopped, lost, or rejected ourselves.
A quote endpoint tells you the cost before you commit, and it returns the same figure the run will use. You are never guessing at a bill.
Where they are the better answer
If you want the clip published for you, choose them. Clipwright renders the file and hands it back. It does not post anywhere, and it will not pretend otherwise.
If you want to browse a wide catalogue of ready-made actors, they have the larger library today. Clipwright takes a description in words, or a photo you supply, and builds the actor from that. It is a different way to get a face, not a bigger catalogue, and if what you want is to scroll through faces until one fits, theirs is the better answer.
And if a monthly plan simply matches how your company buys software, that is a real reason, not a lesser one.
Where we are
You need the size you were promised. You render unevenly, in bursts around launches, and an allowance that expires between them is money left on the table. You want a failed run to be free, and a cost estimate that matches the invoice.
Call it however you already work: REST, the CLI, the TypeScript SDK, or an MCP server if an agent is doing the calling.
Comparing two vendors on their own pages is how you end up choosing on claims instead of files. Render the same script on both and look at what comes back.
AgentMedia vs Clipwright
Competitor details checked on 2026-09-15.
| Feature | AgentMedia | Clipwright |
|---|---|---|
| Resolution delivered | 720 by 1280 (measured 2026-07-16) | 1080 by 1920 by default, other resolutions on request |
| Time to a finished clip | 6 minutes 47 seconds for a ten-second clip (measured 2026-07-16), against a landing page that says render in seconds | Minutes, and the run id tells you where it is the whole time |
| Maximum clip length | Gated by tier: 10 seconds on the entry plan, 15 on the next | Not gated by tier; you pay per second of what you render |
| Billing model | Monthly plans with a credit allowance, plus packs | One credit pack, no plan to keep alive |
| Per-second rate | 30 credits per second | 30 credits per second |
| Failed render | Not documented publicly | Free until the vendor accepts the paid render; free always when the fault is ours |
| Cost estimate before you spend | Quote endpoint documented | Quote endpoint, same answer the run will use |
| Result delivery | Polling, webhooks documented for some paths | Polling; the run id is the receipt |
| Clip retention | Not stated on their public pages | Kept for 30 days, then deleted |
| How you call it | REST, CLI, SDKs, MCP server | REST, CLI, TypeScript SDK, MCP server |
| Credit price | Creator $39/mo (3,900 credits), Pro $69/mo (6,900), Pro Plus $129/mo (12,900); pay-as-you-go packs; 30 credits per second. | 30 credits = 1 second of finished video$10 per 1000 credits, before VAT |
AgentMedia pricing in full
Creator $39/mo (3,900 credits), Pro $69/mo (6,900), Pro Plus $129/mo (12,900); pay-as-you-go packs; 30 credits per second. Single-clip duration is gated by tier: 10 seconds on Creator, 15 on Pro. Measured from a logged-in account 2026-07-16; pricing re-checked against their public pages 2026-09-15.
Checked on 2026-09-15.
Choose AgentMedia if
- You want the clip posted to a social account for you, not just rendered
- You need a large catalogue of prebuilt actors to pick from
- A monthly allowance fits how you buy software better than a pack does
Choose Clipwright if
- You want the larger frame, and you have compared both files yourself
- You do not want the maximum length of a clip to depend on which plan you hold
- You render in bursts and do not want an allowance expiring between campaigns
- You want a run that broke on our side to cost you nothing, without filing a support ticket
Questions
- Is Clipwright cheaper than AgentMedia?
- Per second of finished video, no. Both charge 30 credits per second, and that parity is deliberate. What differs is what you buy: a credit pack at $10 for 1000 credits, with no monthly plan to keep alive between campaigns.
- What actually differs, then?
- The engines underneath, and what falls out of them. They run general video models with their own lip-sync layer; we use a vendor built for audio-driven avatars. The measured frame sizes differ, and both numbers sit in the table above with the date we checked them.
- How long does a clip take?
- Minutes, on both. Their measured time for a ten-second clip is in the table above, taken from a logged-in account, and it is a good deal longer than the phrase on their landing page suggests. Ours is also minutes rather than seconds, and we would rather say that here than surprise you after you have paid.
- Is there a limit on how long one clip can be?
- On their side the maximum length of a single clip depends on which plan you are on, which is worth knowing before you design around it. On ours there is no tier, so length is a question of how many credits you want to spend.
- Can Clipwright post the finished clip for me?
- No. Clipwright renders and returns the file, and stops there. If posting on your behalf is what you are shopping for, that is a real reason to choose something else.
- What happens when a render fails?
- You are charged only once the vendor has accepted the paid render of your clip. A failure before that point costs nothing, and so does a failure caused on our side, even when we have already paid the vendor. We do not bill you for work we stopped, lost, or rejected ourselves.
- Do I need an AI agent to use it?
- No. The MCP server exists so an agent can call it, but the REST API and the CLI work on their own. Plenty of people use it from a terminal and never touch an agent.
Render a clip and compare the files yourself.