Vidico publish monthly plans starting at $5,000 a month with rollover credits, across video, design and motion. We publish $2,000 a month for up to 200 short-form and 30 long-form videos from footage you already have.
Everything below about Vidico comes from their own public pages, read on 24 September 2026. Check it yourself
Vidico are a well established production company with an unusual pricing structure, and finding their numbers takes more effort than it should, which is worth knowing before you go looking.
Their pricing page, read on 24 September 2026, carries no figures at all. It describes flexible plans and routes you to a short quiz. The actual numbers live inside collapsed FAQ answers on their homepage, where they publish that Vidico offers monthly subscription plans starting at $5,000 a month with all creative services included and unused budget rolling over. The same FAQ area notes that explainer video costs range from $5,000 for a simple 2D animation to $20,000 and upward for high-end 3D or live action, framed as general market cost, and that for SaaS companies most invest between $8,000 and $15,000 for a professional 60 to 90 second explainer. Their site shows a plain dollar sign without stating a currency, and the company is Australian while saying half its business is in the United States, so confirm which dollar before budgeting.
Their model is credits with rollover, covering video, design and motion under one roof, and they publish offices in Melbourne, Sydney, New York, Dubai and Singapore, having localised content for more than 200 regions in 17 languages.
We publish $2,000 a month for up to 200 short-form and 30 long-form videos, produced by close to 50 editors in-house in Dubai, from footage that already exists.
Their column is what Vidico publishes, ours is what we publish. Where they do not state something, the row says so instead of guessing.
| Pixel Samy Studio | Vidico | |
|---|---|---|
| Published pricing | $2,000 a month entry point | Monthly subscription plans published from $5,000 a month, with the figure inside a homepage FAQ rather than the pricing page |
| Currency | US dollars | A plain dollar sign with no currency stated, from an Australian company with substantial US business |
| What the money buys | Up to 200 short-form and 30 long-form videos a month | Flexible credits across video, design and motion, with unused budget rolling over |
| Do they produce from scratch | No, we work from footage that already exists | Yes, including animation and live action production |
| Turnaround | 24 hour turnaround on the podcast line | Not stated on their site |
| Revisions | Included, handled by the editors on your account | Not stated on their site |
| Where the team sits | Close to 50 in-house editors in Dubai | Offices published as Melbourne, Sydney, New York, Dubai and Singapore, with footer addresses shown for three of them |
This distinction runs through several of these comparisons and it is the one that matters most here.
Produced video starts from nothing. A script gets written, a style gets designed, animation gets built or a shoot gets run, and what comes out is an asset with a long life, typically sitting on a homepage or leading a campaign. That is expensive because most of the cost is creation.
Edited video starts from something that already happened. You spoke for an hour, and inside that hour are a long-form cut and twenty clips that already exist in raw form. That is cheaper because the expensive part, the thinking and the saying, was done by you.
A company that needs to explain a complicated product needs the first. A founder who needs to be known needs the second. Most growing companies need both, in a ratio of maybe four produced assets a year to a couple of hundred edited pieces a month.
The mistake is treating them as competing quotes, which is easy to do when both arrive as a monthly number, right, and then choosing the one that sounds cheaper without noticing they do different jobs.
Their flexible credit model with rollover deserves a specific mention because it fixes a real problem with retainers.
The usual retainer punishes you for a quiet month. You pay, you were busy with something else, the capacity evaporates at month end and you have effectively burned the fee. Over a year that happens two or three times to most companies.
Rollover means the budget waits for you. For a marketing team whose demand genuinely comes in waves, tied to campaigns and launches rather than a steady weekly rhythm, that is worth real money and I would weigh it heavily.
Our model does not roll over, and I would rather explain why than dress it up. We carry a fixed team of close to fifty people whose salaries are paid whether you send footage or not, so unused capacity is a cost we have already absorbed, and the ceiling is priced on the assumption you use most of it.
Which leads to a straightforward piece of advice. If your content demand is lumpy, a rollover credit model suits you better. If it is continuous, a ceiling is cheaper per piece. Be honest about which one describes your last six months rather than your plan.
Since both of us mention Dubai, it is worth being precise about what that means in each case, because those are different claims.
Their site publishes offices in Melbourne, Sydney, New York, Dubai and Singapore, with footer addresses shown for three of them, and describes half the business being in the United States and the rest primarily in Australia and Asia Pacific. That is a global delivery footprint, which is what you want when assets have to land in many markets.
Ours is narrower and more literal. Dubai is where the editors sit. Close to fifty of them, in-house, in one building, on our payroll. It is not a sales office or a delivery region, it is the production floor.
I point this out not to score a point but because location claims mean different things on different sites, and it is worth asking any agency which kind they mean. An office can be a registered address, a sales presence or a studio, and only one of those tells you where your video actually gets made.
At the end of the day the question behind it is simple. Who touches my footage, and are they employed by the company I am paying.
One small thing that is genuinely useful for a buyer. Their pricing page has no figures on it. The numbers are inside collapsed FAQ answers on the homepage, which means most visitors will never see them and will go through a quiz instead.
I am not going to treat that as a scandal, because plenty of good companies structure pricing conversations rather than publishing rate cards, and for produced video where scope genuinely varies, a quiz is a reasonable way to give someone a range.
But it does affect how you should shop. If you are comparing four suppliers, open the FAQ sections, not just the pricing pages, and write down what each one actually commits to in writing.
And the questions I would put to any of them, including us, are the same three. What is the monthly number. What output does that number cover. What happens to unused capacity. Vidico answer the third one well with rollover. We answer the second one plainly with a ceiling. Any supplier who cannot answer all three in a sentence each is asking you to buy on vibes.
The useful version of this page, because a comparison where the other studio never wins is a comparison nobody believes.
Go with Vidico when what you need is produced video rather than edited video, meaning animated explainers, product films and brand pieces built from a script rather than cut from a recording, because that is a genuine production capability and it is not something we offer at all.
They are also the stronger choice when the same asset has to exist in many markets and languages, since localisation across more than 200 regions and 17 languages is a real operational muscle, and when you want design and motion handled on the same contract so everything stays visually consistent.
Come to us when the raw material already exists and the problem is that almost none of it has been published.
A production company is the right supplier for four or eight important assets a year. It is the wrong supplier for two hundred pieces a month, and at published plans starting at $5,000 against our $2,000, the cost per published piece is not close once volume is the goal, which is the logic behind our content flywheel.
Sandwich publish that $250K is a good starting point. We publish $2,000 a month. Those numbers are not competing, and the interesting question is what each one is actually for.
Superside publish a $15,000 monthly minimum on an annual term for their whole creative offering. We publish $2,000 a month for a video output ceiling. These are not competing products, and I would rather explain that than pretend otherwise.
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 last six months were lumpy, buy the model that rolls over. If they were relentless, buy the ceiling. That is genuinely the whole decision. So yeah. That's my way of saying it.