None tool pay his bill.
A publisher can offer us a premium account to test — He cannot Never buy a mention, a note, or change a verdict. When an account has been offered, it is written at the top of the article.
VideoIA is an editorial site that Start. This page describes the commitment that applies to each test published — From the first. Not a record of past years, but a rule of the game, written before the first verdicts so that we can be held there.
No shortcuts. Each tool go through the same 4 phases before a verdict is published.
Minimum 14 days of actual use on actual projects — Not a 30 minute demo. We pay our subscriptions (unless otherwise explicitly stated).
None tool is judged alone. Each test includes at least 3 alternatives on the same case of use, under the same conditions.
6 weighted criteria, score out of 10 per criterion. The exact weighting is recalled in each article — No magic note coming out of a hat.
The tools AI move fast. We go back to every quarterly test to see if the verdict still holds, or if thetool has regressed/progressed.
Each tool receives one in 10 marks per criterion. The final score is a weighted average — the exact weighting is recalled in each test.
Video rendering, lipsync fidelity, natural voice, visual consistency. We judge what users really see and hear, not the marketing promise.
Real time to generate 60 seconds usable. The brief is timed to the final rendering, on concrete cases: YouTube, training, e-commerce.
Not the price display. The cost of one month of normal production (10 videos, HD exports, premium voice included) is calculated and compared.
How long before the first published video? We note friction: interface, documentation, shortcuts, quality of starting templates.
Hidden quotas, watermarks, unsupported languages, recurring bugs, export limits. Anything you can't see before you pay.
Support responsiveness, doc quality, community, API, integrations (Zapier, Make, n8n). One tool Orphan is expensive in the long run.
Editorial independence is not a slogan. These are the rules that we need, in writing, to hold us accountable.
A publisher can offer us a premium account to test — He cannot Never buy a mention, a note, or change a verdict. When an account has been offered, it is written at the top of the article.
Some outgoing links are affiliated (committee if you subscribe). They're marked. (aff.) and never change Our ranking. One tool affiliate can very well end last of its comparison.
If an editor asks us to remove a negative criticism, we refuse. Only the verifiable factual errors (price, functionality absent while it exists, etc.) — And we date the correction.
When a tool tested is also used internally to produce VideoIA (editing, voice off, miniatures), we specify it. Transparency is better than false neutrality.
A January test is worth nothing in June iftool doubled its features or tripled its prices. Here is the maintenance commitment that applies to each published test.
Each tool tested will be reopened every 90 days minimum. Price, functions, limits, support — we recheck everything, and we date the revision to the top of the article.
Each article has a date « Updated on... ». Major grade changes are reported above, with reason.
One tool out after our last comparison Don't forget. It is added in the next update, with full note.
When a tool close or lose any relevance, archive the article with a clear banner instead of letting it rot as it is.
One would rather receive a correction a hundred times than mislead a reader. Here's how to reach us.
To report a factual error, a price that has changed, a feature that no longer exists, or a tool That we should test. We answer within 72 hours.
For longer requests, editorial partnership proposals (without counterpart on notes), or questions on methodology itself.
An e-mail on Tuesday. 5 tools of the week. One honest verdict. 0 sponso disguised. Unsubscribe in 1 click.
GDPR-compatible. We only store your email. No resale.