InVideo AI vs Runway
A side-by-side look at InVideo AI and Runway for filmmakers: what each one can do, what it costs, and where they actually differ.
-
AI assistant editor on a real multitrack timeline, with a free manual editor
- Price
- Free plan; paid plans per seat from €20/mo (€10/mo billed annually)
- Learning
- Moderate
- Best for
- Short social, ad and explainer videos built from generated clips, stock and talking-head footage
-
Gen-4.5 video, Aleph 2.0 video editing and an agent that builds whole ad campaigns
- Price
- Free (125 one-time credits); Standard $15/mo ($12/mo billed annually)
- Learning
- Easy
- Best for
- Previs and shot tests with Gen-4.5 before committing to a shoot
Where they differ
- Only Runway offers node / flow builder.
- Only Runway offers public API.
All 2 offer: AI agent, chat assistant, team collaboration, text to image, image editing, text to video, image to video, voice / TTS, music & SFX, upscaling, third-party models, MCP server, mobile app, free tier.
InVideo AI vs Runway: capabilities
| InVideo AI | Runway | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | Free plan; paid plans per seat from €20/mo (€10/mo billed annually) | Free (125 one-time credits); Standard $15/mo ($12/mo billed annually) |
| Node / flow builder | No | Yes |
| AI agent | Yes | Yes |
| Chat assistant | Yes | Yes |
| Team collaboration | Yes | Yes |
| Text to image | Yes | Yes |
| Image editing | Yes | Yes |
| Text to video | Yes | Yes |
| Image to video | Yes | Yes |
| Video to video | Not confirmed | Yes |
| Native audio in video | Not confirmed | Partial |
| Lip-sync | Yes | Not confirmed |
| Voice / TTS | Yes | Yes |
| Music & SFX | Yes | Yes |
| Upscaling | Yes | Yes |
| Character consistency | Yes | Partial |
| Camera control | Partial | Not confirmed |
| Custom training | Not confirmed | Partial |
| Third-party models | Yes | Yes |
| Public API | No | Yes |
| MCP server | Yes | Yes |
| Mobile app | Yes | Yes |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
Each column comes from that tool's own researched page. "Not confirmed" means the vendor doesn't say.
Pricing compared
InVideo AI
| Free | €0weekly quota |
|---|---|
| Starter | €20monthly (€10/mo billed annually) |
| Plus | €60monthly (€30/mo billed annually) |
| Max | €150monthly (€75/mo billed annually) |
Runway
| Free | $0none |
|---|---|
| Standard | $15monthly |
| Pro | $35monthly |
| Max | $95monthly |
Which one should you pick?
InVideo AI
Pick it for
- Short social, ad and explainer videos built from generated clips, stock and talking-head footage
- Cutting talking-head, podcast and multicam recordings: silences, filler, angle switching and chapters
- Editors who want an AI first pass and then finish in Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro or DaVinci Resolve
Stands out
- The AI works on a real multitrack timeline, and every edit it makes can be adjusted by hand afterwards.
- Exports an editable project to Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro or DaVinci Resolve with cuts and layers intact, so the AI cut can move into a finishing workflow.
Watch out
- Credits are per seat and do not roll over to the next month
- Seedance 2.0 at 4K and Seedance 2.5 are only on Plus and Max; Starter gets Seedance 2.0 Fast and Mini
Runway
Pick it for
- Previs and shot tests with Gen-4.5 before committing to a shoot
- Fixing finished footage with Aleph 2.0, such as swapping backgrounds or wardrobe across a clip
- Agency ad and campaign work using Agent, Brand Kits and Projects
Stands out
- Gen-4.5 and Aleph 2.0 sit in one credit pool with third-party models such as Kling 3.0, Seedance 2.5, Wan 3.0 and Nano Banana Pro, so you can compare models without separate subscriptions.
- Aleph 2.0 edits existing footage rather than generating new clips, which keeps the rest of a shot stable.
Watch out
- Credits burn fast: about 12 credits per second for Gen-4.5 and about 28 for Aleph 2.0
- Single generations run about 10 seconds, so longer scenes need stitching
Each column comes from that tool's own researched page, checked against vendor pricing and changelog pages (oldest check: ). Sources are listed on each tool's page.
Build a different comparison →