Video Husky publish the clearest spec sheet in this category, from $849 to $2,749 a month with weekly editor hours stated. We publish $2,000 for up to 200 short-form and 30 long-form videos. The split is cleaner than usual.
Everything below about Video Husky comes from their own public pages, read on 24 September 2026. Check it yourself
Video Husky publish more hard specification than anybody else I looked at while building these pages, and I want to say that first because it makes them genuinely easy to compare against.
On their site, read on 24 September 2026, there are three tiers, Eskimo at $849 a month, Siberian at $1,590 a month and St. Bernard at $2,749 a month, and each one publishes raw footage caps in gigabytes and minutes, resolution, final export length, the number of exports and weekly editor hours. Eskimo is ten hours of weekly editor time with 1080p, sixty minutes of raw footage, a twenty minute final export and one main plus three micro exports. Siberian is twenty hours with up to 4K, one main plus eight micro exports and YouTube thumbnails. St. Bernard is forty hours with unlimited exports and captions. Every tier has unlimited revisions, turnaround is stated as one to three business days with 97.5% of requests done in two or less, and there is a fourteen day money back guarantee where you keep any videos already produced.
They also publish what they will not edit, and this is the part that decides most of the comparison, because full podcasts, webinars and stream highlights are on that list.
We publish $2,000 a month for up to 200 short-form and 30 long-form videos with thumbnails included, produced by close to 50 editors in-house in Dubai, and podcasts are the single biggest thing we do.
Their column is what Video Husky publishes, ours is what we publish. Where they do not state something, the row says so instead of guessing.
| Pixel Samy Studio | Video Husky | |
|---|---|---|
| Published pricing | $2,000 a month entry point | $849 Eskimo, $1,590 Siberian, $2,749 St. Bernard, per month |
| How capacity is defined | Up to 200 short-form and 30 long-form videos a month | Weekly editor hours, 10 on Eskimo, 20 on Siberian, 40 on St. Bernard |
| Short-form output | Up to 200 a month inside the entry price | 1 main plus 3 micro exports on Eskimo, 1 main plus 8 micro on Siberian |
| Full podcasts | Our largest category, more than 400 episodes a month | Listed among the project types they do not edit |
| Turnaround | 24 hour turnaround on the podcast line | 1 to 3 business days, with 97.5% of requests in 2 business days or less |
| Revisions | Included, handled by the editors on your account | Unlimited revisions on all three tiers |
| Where the team sits | Close to 50 in-house editors in Dubai | Working hours published as Philippines Time, GMT+8 |
Their own site lists the project types they do not take, and full podcasts, webinars and stream highlights are on it, along with weddings, music videos and documentaries.
That is not a weakness, it is a scoping decision, and a sensible one. Long unscripted recordings are a completely different editing problem from a scripted brand video. The edit is longer, the decisions are about pacing and removal rather than assembly, and the real output is not one video, it is one video plus twenty clips.
But it does mean that if your content is a podcast, a webinar series or long-form founder recordings, the comparison is mostly over before it starts, and you are choosing between studios that do that kind of work rather than between us and them.
We run more than 400 podcast episodes a month, which is not a boast so much as an explanation of why our whole pipeline is shaped the way it is, from how footage arrives to how clips get chosen. That is the thing we built the studio to do, and it is the thing they have decided not to do, and both of those are legitimate choices.
This is the second number I would look at hard, because it is easy to skim past on a pricing table.
Eskimo gives one main export plus three micro exports. Siberian gives one main plus eight. St. Bernard is unlimited. So on the middle tier, a brief produces nine assets, and if you send four briefs a month you are at thirty six pieces, which is a solid amount of content by most standards.
Our ceiling is two hundred short-form and thirty long-form. The reason those numbers are so far apart is not that anyone is better, it is that they are priced against different assumptions, hours of editing in their case, finished pieces in ours.
And the thing I would genuinely warn about, on either model, is that clip volume without clip judgment is worthless. Two hundred badly chosen clips will do less than nine well chosen ones. The only reason a high ceiling is worth anything is if the people choosing the moments know what stands alone, which is the part our own channels taught us the hard way and the part no pricing table can show you.
I will give them this without hedging. Their pricing table publishes raw footage caps in both gigabytes and minutes, resolution limits, final runtime, export counts and weekly editor hours per tier, and their working hours are stated as Philippines Time, Monday to Friday, nine to six.
That is more specification than we publish, and if you are the kind of buyer who wants every constraint on the table before signing, they have served you better than most of this industry does.
Our equivalent is a ceiling and a team size, up to 200 short-form and 30 long-form pieces, close to 50 editors in-house in Dubai. It is simpler, but it is less granular, and the fair criticism of a ceiling is that it does not tell you how long any individual thing takes.
So if you are comparing us, ask the granular questions directly and hold us to the answers. How long is a first cut of a ninety minute podcast. What happens to a rush job. Who is checking it before it reaches you. We should be able to answer all of those as specifically as their table does, and if a studio cannot, that is informative.
Every Video Husky tier includes unlimited revisions with no cap language, and that is a real promise that a lot of buyers value.
Here is the honest view from inside a studio though. Unlimited revisions mostly protect you from a bad brief and a bad first cut, and if you find yourself using them heavily, something upstream is broken, usually the brief or the fact that nobody agreed what the video was for before editing started.
What actually reduces revisions is familiarity. An editor who has cut forty of your videos guesses right the first time, which is the entire argument for keeping the same in-house people on an account for years rather than rotating whoever is free.
So I would not choose between studios on the revision policy. I would ask the better question, which is what your average number of revision rounds actually is after month three, because a studio that needs four rounds every time is costing you a week of calendar on every single video, and no policy fixes that.
Honestly this one is simpler than most.
If your content is briefs, brand videos, ads and standard talking-head pieces at one or two a week, and you want every constraint published before you spend anything, Video Husky is a strong, clear, well documented choice and the entry tier is genuinely good value.
If your content is podcasts, webinars or long recordings, they publish that they do not edit those, so the decision is already made and you should be talking to studios that do.
And if what you need is volume, meaning dozens of short pieces a month rather than a handful of micro exports per brief, then you are buying capacity rather than hours, and that is the model we sell.
The mistake I see most often is buying the cheaper tier of something that does not do your kind of work, then spending six months wondering why the content engine never got going. Pick for the shape of the work first, then argue about price.
The useful version of this page, because a comparison where the other studio never wins is a comparison nobody believes.
Go with Video Husky when you want to know exactly what you are buying before you spend anything, because their spec sheet answers questions most agencies leave you to discover in month two, and that clarity is worth a lot when you are choosing between services that all sound the same.
They are also the better fit for a steady one or two videos a week of standard talking-head or brand content, where unlimited revisions at $849 with a money back guarantee is a genuinely low risk way to start, and honestly a better use of your money than our ceiling would be at that volume.
Come to us when the work is podcasts, webinars or long recordings, because those are explicitly on the list of things they do not edit, and they are the bulk of what moves through our studio every month.
Come to us also when the clip count is the point. One main video plus three or eight micro exports per brief is a different universe from two hundred short-form pieces a month, and if your plan is to be visible daily on four platforms, the difference is not a preference, it is arithmetic, which is what our content flywheel is built around.
Vidchops publish $495 and $995 a month in credits, where one credit is one long-form video or four short-form videos. We publish $2,000 for up to 200 short-form and 30 long-form. Here is how those actually compare.
KIMP sell unlimited video requests with two active at a time. We sell a published ceiling of 200 short-form and 30 long-form videos for $2,000. The difference is not the word unlimited, it is the throughput underneath it.
Vidpros sells you a dedicated editor's hours every workday. We sell a finished content operation with a volume ceiling on top. Here is the honest split, with both sets of published numbers.
Tasty Edits publish a clear price for every single video. We publish a monthly ceiling. The maths flips somewhere around fifteen pieces a month, and here is exactly where.
If your content is podcasts or long recordings, this comparison is already decided, and I would rather tell you that than sell you something. If it is volume you are after, send me one recording and I will show you the month of output inside it. So yeah. That's my way of saying it.