Comparison
Arcads vs Creatify: the split is who brings the script
Arcads casts generated people to perform a script you arrive with. Creatify starts at a product URL and writes the script itself. This page covers what each one takes off your desk, what it hands back, and the one job neither of them touches. By the end you will know which half you are short of, and what a filmed take costs instead.
- Share of ad creatives that become winners, per Motion's analysis of 550,000+ Meta ads
- 5-8%
- Writing one script per listing across 400 products, at 30 minutes each
- 200 hours
- What a casting library writes for you
- 0 words
Arcads sells performances, and casting is genuinely what it removes
It is a casting room. You bring the sentence. You choose who says it.
The same forty seconds comes back read by a dozen generated people, in a dozen kitchens, before the end of the afternoon. That is an experiment most teams have run zero times.
Price the alternative. Twelve creators reading one script is twelve briefs, twelve rate cards and a fortnight of chasing.
A tool that refuses to write also cannot write badly. The objection a customer typed into support at eleven at night survives in their words.
The limit is the blank page. With no script, a library of faces is a subscription attached to nothing. Buyers find that out in week two rather than during the demo.
Where each one starts, and what lands in the folder
Neither column is the good one. They remove opposite halves of the same job, which is why buyers who choose on render quality regret it.
| Arcads | Creatify | |
|---|---|---|
| You arrive holding | A finished script | A product URL |
| It supplies | The performance | The script and the assembly |
| The hard part it removes | Casting and scheduling | The blank page |
| How output goes wrong | A weak script read twelve ways | Thirty ads that read as one |
| Buy it when you are short of | Executions | Words |
Creatify pays for itself on the four hundredth listing, not the first
Point it at a product page. It works out the angle, writes the script and assembles a watchable vertical ad. You supply the URL and the judgement about what ships.
The arithmetic is the argument. Thirty minutes of writing per listing is twenty hours across forty products. Across four hundred it is two hundred hours.
Nobody has two hundred hours. So the catalogue goes on selling itself with photographs.
A draft you can argue with beats an empty project at four on a Tuesday. Criticising is a faster skill to hire than drafting, and most teams are staffed for the first one.
The bill arrives as sameness. Drafted scripts read the same page structures and reach for the same phrasings. Thirty outputs can be one script wearing thirty hats.
Two or three lines carry the claim in any ad. Somebody has to rewrite those by hand on every batch.
Hand-writing one script per listing, at 30 minutes each
The last bar is the whole case for a drafting engine. It is also the bar nobody running a 40-product store needs to worry about.
- 40 products20 hours
- 120 products60 hours
- 400 products200 hours
This is the whole editor
Highlight a phrase and a clip lands on those exact words. No timeline, no keyframes, no layers.
Neither writes the sentence that stops a thumb, and that sentence is what pays
Published benchmarks put the share of ad creatives that become winners at roughly 5 to 8 percent, per Motion's analysis of 550,000+ Meta ads. Somewhere between one in thirteen and one in twenty.
Read that as an under-sampling problem rather than a talent problem. Six ads a month against a one in thirteen rate is a long wait. A quarter holds three of those months.
Neither tool moves the rate. Both move how many attempts you can afford, which is the half you control.
Both also stop at the same ceiling. A generated performer holds up on informational, demonstrative and comparative content.
It is weakest on unrehearsed emotion and specific lived detail. That is where a real face earns its money.
Buying either on the assumption that the next model release closes that gap is a bet. Write the bet down and notice if it does not land.
Short of words or short of executions: most buyers know, and buy the other one
Open the last five ads you ran. Ask who wrote the opening line. If a tool wrote it, you are short of words. If a person did, you are short of executions.
Guessing wrong is expensive in a predictable way. Buy casting with no script and you generate nothing anybody would fund.
Buy drafting on top of strong copy and you spend a month deleting a machine's opinions about your own product.
Run the trial like an ordinary Tuesday rather than like a demo. Your messy script. Your slightly wrong product photo. Your Friday deadline.
Then count usable outputs rather than total outputs. Ten renders you would never put media behind is a cost, not a result.
Write the answer down before the trial starts. Buyers who skip that step spend two weeks exploring features and learn nothing about the work in front of them.
- Angles, objections and customer phrasing already in a doc: Arcads, and treat the words as the asset.
- Four hundred listings and nobody who owns copy: Creatify, then budget an hour per batch on the claim line.
- One believable person and no editor: Cutroom, 100 credits a batch, and the take you filmed today ships today.
- Either way, count the outputs you would fund. That number is your cost per usable ad, and no pricing page prints it.
The trade neither one offers: keep the person, delete the edit
Both tools solve the camera problem by deleting the human. Cutroom solves it the other way round. Keep the human. Delete the editing.
One talking-head take of up to three minutes goes in, filmed on a phone. A finished 9:16 MP4 comes back. You direct it by marking the transcript.
Highlight a phrase and a clip lands over exactly those words. Delete a line and the cut rebuilds around the gap. Change the pace and the whole edit re-cuts.
Captions come from six style packs, burnt in and timed to the speech. B-roll coverage is capped by pace at 40, 45 or 52 percent, so footage supports the speaker instead of burying them.
The price is known before you start. A batch is 100 credits and an export is 20 credits per output minute, so a thirty second ad is 110 credits.
The facts a buyer needs: somebody has to be on camera, three minutes is enforced at upload, and output is 9:16. The trial is 7 days on 300 credits with no card, which covers a complete ad.
Arcads and Cutroom, row by row
Two rows go to Arcads and they are the real ones. The other five are the difference between a read and an ad you can run.
| Arcads | Cutroom | |
|---|---|---|
| Nobody has to be on camera | Generated performers read it | Someone films one take |
| One script, a dozen readings | A library of performers | One take, one voice |
| A real face making the claim | Synthetic person, synthetic claim | Your own face and voice |
| The whole edit, not only the read | Assembly around the performer | Cut, captions, b-roll, music |
| B-roll on the phrase you marked | You search and place it | Capped at 40, 45 or 52 percent |
| Known cost per finished ad | Priced per generation | 110 credits for 30 seconds |
| Trial without a card | Check their current terms | 7 days, 300 credits |
Questions people ask
- Do synthetic UGC ads still perform?
- It depends on the claim, not the tool. Informational reads, demonstrations and offer framing hold up. First-person emotional testimony is where viewers spot the seam. Test it against your own footage before you commit a quarter of budget.
- Which one is cheaper?
- Both sell tiers with different generation allowances and both change plans often, so check their current pricing yourself. The number that decides it is cost per usable variation. Run one script through both, then count the outputs you would put money behind.
- Do I have to disclose that the presenter is AI?
- Platform policies and advertising standards differ by market and are tightening, so check the rules where you run. A synthetic presenter making a first-person claim about a result they did not get is the high-risk combination.
- Who should walk away from both of these?
- Anyone in a trust-led category where the customer is buying the person: coaching, health, anything with a before and after. Film that person on a phone and run the take through Cutroom for 100 credits. The face stays yours and the editing disappears.
One brings the faces. One brings the first draft. Cutroom brings the cut, the captions and the pictures, from a take you filmed this morning.