Ten Superside alternatives for B2B video in 2026, ranked by how the commitment is structured: monthly minimums, annual terms and per-project pricing compared.
This is a review desk, so the method comes before the list.
We ranked for one buyer: a B2B marketing or creative lead who went to Superside for video, or is about to, and wants to know what else exists. That narrows the field sharply, because most pages about Superside alternatives are written for design buyers. Superside's own roots are unlimited design, and the majority of the lists ranking it compare unlimited design services. Those are not alternatives if your backlog is product videos, demos and paid social cuts. Four criteria, weighted in this order.
Weighted heaviest, because it is the thing that makes people look for an alternative in the first place. We gave the most weight to arrangements where you can stop: per-project pricing, monthly terms, or a short initial period. We gave the least weight to annual-only terms, and we treated a monthly minimum as a separate constraint from the term length, since the two combine into the real number.
An agency that makes video all day and an agency that makes video as one of fifteen outputs will give you different work from the same brief. We favoured studios whose homepage is about video, and marked down full-service creative teams where video shares a bench with print, packaging and design systems.
Not whether it is cheap. Whether you can find out before a sales call, and whether the published figure is all-in or a starting point with extras billed separately. Published figures are quoted below with their source, and figures move, so check the page before you rely on one.
B2B software is the hardest brief in this market because the product is a workflow rather than an object. We looked for named B2B clients, published B2B case studies or an explicit B2B practice, not a general reel with a SaaS logo in it.
What we did not optimise for. Not breadth of creative output, which is the axis Superside wins on and wins on fairly. Not AI tooling depth. Not enterprise localisation across markets. And not the lowest price, which is why the cheapest entry here ranks ninth rather than first. If you need design systems, packaging, print and thirty markets from one contract, this list will point you in the wrong direction.
| Agency | Commercial model | Minimum commitment | Published figure | Better suited for... than... |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superside (for reference) | Creative subscription across every format | Annual, $15,000 a month minimum | $15,000 a month plus a $1,000 software fee; Dedicated from $30,000 a month | Enterprise brand teams running every creative format at volume, than teams whose backlog is only video |
| Apollo Studio | Per project, all in | None | $5,000 to $50,000+, all in | Teams that want one number per video and no retainer, than teams needing an always-on bench across every format |
| Vidico | Flexible credits that roll over | Not published | Plans start around $5,000 a month, on its finance page | Funded tech teams wanting a premium product story, than teams wanting a figure before a call |
| Shootsta | Subscription on prepaid video credits | Annual, no month-to-month | From US$1,000 a month plus taxes | Teams producing a high volume of internal and social video, than teams commissioning a few flagship pieces |
| Content Beta | Monthly credits, or a one-off package | Monthly, no annual commitment | $3,000 a month, or $2,000 for one video | B2B SaaS teams wanting a small subscription they can cancel, than teams needing live-action crews |
| Motion The Agency | Fixed price, subscription or prepaid credits | Varies by model | From $3,480 fixed, $3,950 a month, or $18,000 in credits | Teams wanting motion and design in one place, than teams whose work is mostly filmed |
| Vid.co | Outsourced video department, monthly | 90 days, then month to month | $5,000 a month | Teams building a repeatable publishing habit, than teams buying one campaign asset |
| Moonb | Subscription across every creative channel | Not published | Not published | Teams wanting Superside's shape at a smaller scale, than teams wanting a published price |
| Epipheo | Per project | None | $5,000 to $150,000+, by tier with turnarounds | Teams buying one carefully made explainer, than teams needing continuous output |
| Content Buck | Monthly plans or credit packs | None, no contracts | $999 to $5,499 a month | High-volume editing and ad testing on a small budget, than teams needing original production |
| Komet Media | Monthly plans or credits | Credits expire after a year | $2,499 a month for 10 clips, $8,499 for 30+ | Teams with recordings to repurpose, than teams starting from a blank page |
Apollo Studio is the clearest answer to the specific problem that sends people looking for a Superside alternative, because it removes the subscription rather than shrinking it. There is no monthly minimum, no annual term and no software fee. Work is scoped and priced per project, and Apollo publishes the range: $5,000 to $50,000+, all in, with most projects landing between $15,000 and $30,000, covering scripting, production, revisions and final cuts.
It also meets the second criterion more completely than anything else here. Apollo writes and directs video exclusively for B2B services, software and tech, with published industries in SaaS, AI, fintech, cybersecurity, healthcare and B2B services, and clients including Vanta, Anvilogic and HiddenLayer. Its ad work comes back as a pack of cuts and variants sized for LinkedIn, Meta and YouTube rather than a single file, which is the one place Superside's model has a real advantage and the gap worth closing. Apollo publishes a window too: about three weeks from discovery to final files, with a rush that shipped in eight working days.
Who it is less suited for. Teams that genuinely need an always-on creative bench across design, print, presentations and localisation as well as video. That is a different purchase, and the subscription services below are built for it.
Vidico is the strongest video-first alternative at the premium end. Its model is closer to Superside's than most of this list: a flexible credit balance you scale up or down, with unused credit rolling over, covering video, design and motion from one team. The difference is the floor. Vidico's finance page publishes plans starting around $5,000 a month with budget rollover, against Superside's $15,000, and Vidico does not publish an annual commitment.
The evidence is substantial. Vidico states 920+ brands worldwide and names TikTok, Spotify and Reckon among long-running clients, and its published industry pages cover fintech, SaaS and adjacent B2B categories in detail. It offers a free first script before a formal engagement, which is a cheap way to see the thinking.
Who it is less suited for. Teams that want a number on the pricing page. Vidico's pricing page now routes to a two-minute quiz rather than a published rate.
Shootsta is the closest structural match to Superside on this list, which makes it the natural comparison if you like the model and only object to the size. It is a platform plus prepaid credits plus a subscription, the same three parts, starting from US$1,000 a month plus taxes. Every plan includes editing with a 48-hour turnaround, brand template setup, five rounds of feedback on every project and a dedicated account manager, and credits cover editing, animation and creative work alike.
The honest caveat is the term. Shootsta states plainly that it runs annual subscriptions and does not offer month-to-month plans, and that credits must be used inside the contract period rather than rolling past it. Shoots are priced separately from credits, and rush turnaround inside 48 hours is quoted on its own.
Who it is less suited for. Teams that want out of an annual commitment specifically, since that is the one Superside constraint Shootsta keeps.
Content Beta is built for exactly the B2B SaaS buyer this list is written for, and it is the best answer if you want a subscription with the lock-in taken out. The Startup plan is $3,000 a month for 50 credits with no annual commitment, unused credits roll over into the next active month, and you can top up without upgrading. Credit costs are published per asset type: a static ad is 4 credits, a product demo video is 8.
It also sells a way in that most subscription services do not. A $2,000 one-off package covers a single video in one of seven formats, including explainers, product demos and tutorials, with scripting, storyboarding, product UI animation, voiceover, two revision rounds, two social cuts and ten-day delivery. Both plans include a dedicated creative director, source files and Slack access.
Who it is less suited for. Work that needs filmed footage and a crew on location, which is not what a credit-based remote model is shaped for.
Motion The Agency earns its place for publishing something almost nobody publishes: the point at which each commercial model stops being the cheaper one. It sells all three, with prices for each. A fixed-price project starts at $3,480, the subscription is $3,950 a month, and prepaid creative credits start at $18,000. Its pricing page then states that for one video or a handful a year, fixed price is better value, and a subscription costs less past roughly four videos a year.
That one sentence is more useful than most of the comparison content in this category, because it is the calculation a buyer leaving Superside is actually trying to do. The work itself is motion graphics, brand design and UI/UX support, so it is a real alternative for teams whose video is animated rather than filmed.
Who it is less suited for. Teams whose video is mostly live action, since the bench here is weighted towards motion and design.
Vid.co sells an outsourced video department rather than a production service, which is a genuinely different answer to the same problem. One published number, $5,000 a month, covers strategy, planning, production, editing, publishing and ongoing optimisation, with no installation or onboarding fees. One of its paths starts at $10,000 and then runs at $5,000 a month.
The commitment sits between Superside's annual term and a monthly subscription: a 90-day initial period to establish the system, after which the engagement continues month to month. For a team whose problem is that video never ships consistently rather than that any single video is wrong, that is the right shape, and the published results include 20,000+ subscribers and two Telly Awards.
Who it is less suited for. Teams buying one campaign asset, since the model is built around continuous publishing rather than a single deliverable.
Moonb is the nearest thing on this list to Superside's actual proposition at a smaller scale: a dedicated creative director and creative team covering video editing, motion design, video production, ad creative, web and product design, branding and presentations from one subscription, with multiple weekly deliveries and support for multiple brands.
What it publishes instead of a price is a set of commitments, and they are the ones that matter when you are comparing against an enterprise subscription: same-day onboarding, a 48-hour average turnaround, revisions until approved rather than capped rounds, zero outsourcing, and full IP and file ownership. It reports 95% client retention across the thousands of projects it states it has shipped, and its published reviewers are senior creative and video leads at named companies rather than anonymous quotes.
Who it is less suited for. Teams that need the budget approved before the first conversation, since Moonb prices by quote.
Epipheo is here for buyers who should not be on a subscription at all, and it publishes the most complete cost breakdown in this market by some distance. Projects are grouped into three tiers with turnarounds attached: $5,000 to $25,000 at four to six weeks, $25,000 to $75,000 at six to ten weeks, and $75,000+ at ten to sixteen weeks. It then breaks the cost down by component, including what voiceover costs at each level.
The track record behind it is the longest here: more than 6,000 explainer videos over fifteen years. For a team that needs one flagship explainer to carry a launch, a per-project engagement with a published range and a published schedule is a cleaner purchase than buying a year of capacity to get one video out of it.
Who it is less suited for. Continuous output. This is a per-project studio and the model does not pretend otherwise.
Content Buck has the lowest floor on this list and publishes every tier: $999, $1,599, $2,999 and $5,499 a month, with an unlimited ads testing add-on at $3,499 a month, credit packs for teams whose volume moves, and no contracts. It also sells the cheapest trial in this market, a single video for $60 or a five-video bundle for $300, both with unlimited revisions included.
The claim it builds everything around is 24-hour delivery, which puts it in a different job to the studios above: this is high-volume editing, repurposing and ad variant production rather than original concepting and production. For a performance team that needs fifty cuts tested this month and has no appetite for a subscription, that is the right tool.
Who it is less suited for. Original production. A $999 monthly plan with 24-hour delivery is not buying scripting, direction and a shoot.
Komet Media solves a narrower problem than anything above it, and solves it with published numbers. It turns recordings you already have, podcasts, webinars, events and blog posts, into a stream of clips and distribution-ready assets. The Video Content System is $2,499 a month for ten video clips with scripting, unlimited revisions and done-for-you distribution; the top tier is $8,499 a month for 30+ pieces with weekly production calls.
It also sells credits at $499 each, with volume discounts at five and twenty, and a one-year expiry rather than a monthly one. Each credit turns one content piece into a hero snippet and five short clips on a five-day turnaround. It states it can also start from a blank slate, handling research, scripting and production.
Who it is less suited for. Teams whose core need is a single high-craft brand or product film, which is not what a clip engine is built to make.
Venture Videos describes itself as a SaaS specialist and offers to show its creative thinking on a specific brief before you commit, which is a reasonable way to test a studio without a trial fee. It does not publish prices.
Studio Monday publishes both a price and a schedule, from $4,745 for an explainer or launch video with a fourteen-day turnaround, or $2,995 a month for an ongoing plan, which is unusual transparency on the timing side.
Wyzowl has produced video for more than 2,000 businesses since 2011 and runs published sector practices, which makes it a safe per-project choice for teams who want an established name rather than a subscription.
If the problem is the commitment rather than the work, go per project. Apollo Studio is the clearest case on this list, because the all-in figure covers revisions and final cuts rather than starting a negotiation about them.
If you want to keep a subscription but at a tenth of the floor, Shootsta is the closest match to the model you already know. Read the annual term first, since that is the one Superside constraint it keeps.
If you want a small subscription you can actually leave, Content Beta at $3,000 a month with no annual commitment and credit rollover is the strongest version of that, and its $2,000 single-video package is the cheapest honest way to test a studio properly.
If you are not sure whether a subscription is right at all, read Motion The Agency's pricing page before you talk to anyone. It publishes the crossover point, and roughly four videos a year is a useful number to check your own plan against.
If the real failure is that video never ships, the answer is operational rather than creative. Vid.co is built around that, and 90 days is a fair length of rope to find out.
If you need one flagship explainer, Epipheo's published tiers tell you the budget and the schedule before you book a call, which is most of what a per-project buyer needs.
An alternatives list that cannot name the cases it loses is just a sales page, so here they are.
Superside is the right answer when video is genuinely one of several creative workstreams and the others are substantial. Its Flex budget covers design, video, photo, UI/UX, illustration, motion, 3D, AR, audio, creative development, concepting and brand strategy on one contract, and unused Flex budget rolls over for up to three months. If you are currently holding three vendors to cover that range, consolidating is a real saving and the annual term is the price of it.
It is also the right answer at genuine scale. A team shipping creative continuously across multiple markets will use a $15,000 monthly budget without trying, and at that volume the dedicated option at $30,000 a month on a twelve-month term buys the same people every month rather than a rotating bench. Superside states a Dedicated team goes live in about three weeks.
And it is the right answer if AI workflow setup is part of what you are buying. Superside sells that explicitly, including a $20,000 three-week Quick Start engagement that configures its brand model to your briefing process and hands over a playbook. None of the ten agencies above sell that as a product.
The teams who should look elsewhere are the ones for whom video is the whole backlog, or whose annual volume does not clear the minimum. At $15,000 a month on an annual term plus the $1,000 monthly software fee, the floor is roughly $192,000 a year. Set against Apollo Studio's published range of $5,000 to $50,000+ per project, that is a question with an arithmetic answer rather than a creative one.
The useful comparison is not the headline number, it is the shape of the number.
Three shapes exist on this list. Per project, where you pay for a deliverable: Apollo Studio at $5,000 to $50,000+ all in, Epipheo at $5,000 to $150,000+ by tier, Motion The Agency from $3,480. Monthly subscription, where you pay for capacity: Content Buck from $999, Shootsta from US$1,000 plus taxes, Komet Media from $2,499, Content Beta at $3,000, Motion The Agency at $3,950, Vidico from around $5,000, Vid.co at $5,000. And prepaid credits, where you pay in advance and draw down: Shootsta, Content Beta, Komet Media at $499 a credit, Vidico, and Motion The Agency from $18,000.
Three things, and they are where most of the real difference sits. Whether revisions are included or billed, since a low base with revisions on top is a different offer entirely. What happens to unused capacity: Content Beta and Vidico roll it over, Shootsta states credits must be used inside the contract period, Komet's credits expire after a year, and Superside rolls Flex budget over for up to three months. And whether the published figure is the whole cost, since a subscription fee and a software fee are two lines on the same invoice.
Volume and originality, in that order, and they pull in opposite directions. A high volume of short assets cut from existing material is cheap and gets cheaper on a subscription. A small number of original pieces that need scripting, direction and a shoot is expensive and does not get cheaper by buying capacity you then have to fill. Most teams who are unhappy with a creative subscription bought the second thing and are paying for the first.
Superside is not a bad product and the lists treating it as one are not useful. It is a well-built creative subscription with a $15,000 monthly minimum and an annual term, sold to teams with a continuous, multi-format creative load. The mismatch happens when a team with a video problem buys a creative-capacity solution.
So the question to answer before you shortlist anything is a boring one. How many videos will you actually commission in the next twelve months, and what else do you need made alongside them? If the answer is a handful of videos and nothing else, per-project pricing wins on arithmetic alone and the subscription models on this list are a worse version of the same mistake. If the answer is continuous output across several formats, the argument is not against subscriptions, it is about which one and at what floor.
For B2B video specifically, the strongest alternatives split by commercial model. Per project: Apollo Studio, which publishes $5,000 to $50,000+ all in and works exclusively in B2B software and tech, and Epipheo, which publishes tiered ranges from $5,000 to $150,000+ with turnarounds attached. Monthly subscription at a lower floor: Shootsta from US$1,000 a month, Content Beta at $3,000 a month with no annual commitment, and Vid.co at $5,000 a month after a 90-day initial period. For teams that want Superside's full-service shape at a smaller scale, Moonb and Vidico are the closest matches.
Superside's pricing page publishes a $15,000 monthly minimum on an annual term, plus a $1,000 monthly software fee covering platform access. Its Dedicated plan starts at $30,000 a month on a twelve-month term with the same software fee. Project Boosters, for large time-bound work on top of a subscription, start at a $15,000 minimum, and a Quick Start AI implementation engagement is $20,000 over three weeks. Unused Flex budget rolls over for up to three months.
Yes. Superside states that all its subscriptions run on an annual commitment, and explains the reason as prioritising ongoing creative partnerships over one-off work. It does mention an Exploratory Project, a paid scoped engagement available in some cases as a pathway towards a subscription rather than a standalone trial. If a shorter term is the thing you need, the per-project agencies on this list and the monthly subscriptions at Content Beta and Content Buck are the ones to look at.
It is one of four ways Superside configures a team, and its video and motion offer covers YouTube, brand films and social video. Whether that suits you is a question about proportion rather than quality. If video is a share of a wider creative load that also includes design, presentations, localisation and ad creative, having it on the same contract is an advantage. If video is nearly all of what you buy, you are funding a bench whose other disciplines you will not draw on, and a video-first studio will usually give you better work per dollar.
Content Buck publishes the lowest floor at $999 a month with no contract, and sells a single-video trial for $60 or a five-video bundle for $300. Shootsta starts at US$1,000 a month plus taxes on an annual subscription. Both are built for volume editing and repurposing rather than original production, so compare them against what you actually need made. If the work is original and occasional, a per-project agency will cost less in total than any subscription, however low the monthly figure looks.
Apollo Studio for per-project work, because B2B services, software and tech is the only category it works in and its published client list is software companies selling to technical and risk-averse buyers. Content Beta for a small subscription, since it is built specifically for B2B SaaS and publishes credit costs by asset type, including 8 credits for a product demo video. Vidico for the premium end, with 920+ brands and detailed published industry pages. Avoid generalist unlimited-design services for this brief, since explaining a workflow is the hard part and it is not a design problem.
Yes, and for most B2B teams it is the cheaper route. Apollo Studio prices per project with no subscription and no minimum, publishing $5,000 to $50,000+ all in with most projects between $15,000 and $30,000. Epipheo publishes per-project tiers with turnarounds. Motion The Agency sells fixed-price projects from $3,480 alongside its subscription, and publishes the crossover point: a subscription starts to cost less past roughly four videos a year. Content Beta also sells a $2,000 one-off single-video package without a subscription.
Five things, and get them in writing. The term length and the monthly minimum, as separate questions. What happens to unused capacity at the end of a month and at the end of the contract. Whether video shares the same budget as design and who decides the split. What is excluded from the subscription and billed separately, which for several services on this list includes shoots and rush turnaround. And how many concurrent requests you can have open, since that is the real cap on throughput rather than the monthly figure.
Differently enough that the word is close to meaningless across vendors. Content Beta publishes a credit cost per asset type, 4 for a static ad and 8 for a product demo video, with rollover into the next active month. Shootsta's credits cover editing, animation and creative work but not shoots, and must be used inside the contract period. Komet Media sells credits at $499 each, where one credit turns one recording into a hero snippet and five short clips on a five-day turnaround, expiring after a year. Motion The Agency sells prepaid credits from $18,000. Always ask what one credit buys and when it expires.
It depends on annual volume, and Motion The Agency is the only agency here that publishes the crossover: fixed price is better value for one video or a handful a year, and a subscription costs less past roughly four videos a year. That figure will shift with the agency and the complexity of the work, but the method is right. Count the videos you commissioned last year rather than the ones you hoped to, multiply by a per-project figure, and compare that against twelve months of any subscription floor including its software fee.
