Comparison
Ranking sorts what exists. The shortage is candidates.
Ranking tools mine long video and tell you which moments to post. Munch does that well. Sorting a small pool does not make the pool any bigger. Here is why the count is the lever, what a new candidate costs in credits, and how Cutroom produces one this afternoon.
- of creatives carry the spend
- 5-8%
- cost of another cut of one take
- 20 CR
- free credits, seven days, no card
- 300
When forty clips exist, sorting them is the useful job and Munch does it
A long recording produces more candidate moments than anyone will watch back. Choosing by hand is slow.
Ranking with signal behind it beats scrubbing. It also beats posting in the order the clips came out.
It gives a team a defensible order of work, which matters when three people disagree about what goes first.
For a marketing team working from webinars and long uploads, that saves real time every week.
Here is what ranking cannot do. It cannot add a candidate to the pool.
Rank twelve and you still have twelve draws. The best of twelve is not the same thing as a winner.
Cutroom adds candidates instead. Film forty seconds answering one objection and upload it.
Back comes a finished 9:16 MP4, captions burned in and coverage on the words you marked.
Sorting a small pool does not fix a small pool
Winners run at 5 to 8 percent of creatives, per Motion's analysis of 550,000+ Meta ads. One in thirteen to one in twenty.
That percentage is a property of the market, not of your taste. No ranking model changes it.
The lever that moves the outcome is the number of distinct attempts entering the account each month.
Distinct is the important word. Twelve clips of one recording are one idea in twelve outfits.
New ideas need new speaking. That is why the fix upstream is a camera rather than a model.
There is a compounding version of this. Post the best of a small pool every month and the pool gets more familiar to the same audience.
New candidates reset that. Reordering the old ones does not.
Here a new candidate is one 100-credit batch and about four minutes of marking a transcript.
Film three objections on a Tuesday and the pool is three ideas deeper by Wednesday, with nothing waiting on a recording that already exists.
Thirteen creatives, one that carries the spend
Ranking tells you the order. It does not add a square to the grid. Only new attempts do that.
This is the whole editor
Highlight a phrase and a clip lands on those exact words. No timeline, no keyframes, no layers.
A new candidate costs forty seconds of filming and eleven marks
Film a take answering one objection. Upload it, up to three minutes.
It returns transcribed, drafted into a full cut, and captioned as a 9:16 MP4 with coverage placed.
Highlight a phrase and a clip lands over exactly those words. Swap it, or search millions of free ones.
Delete a line and the cut rebuilds around the gap. Change the pace and the whole piece re-cuts.
Write a different opening headline and export again at 20 credits a finished minute, from the same batch.
No timeline, no keyframes, no layers. The loop is short enough to run twice in an afternoon.
Coverage is capped by pace: 40 percent on chill, 45 on normal, 52 on fast. Each candidate keeps a person at the centre.
Trim the opening or the ending. Write the headline that has to survive the first three seconds.
- Batch 100 credits covers transcript, director pass and b-roll search
- Six caption packs, coverage capped at 40, 45 or 52 percent by pace
- A second export from the same take does not re-charge the batch
- Somebody has to film, or own a photo the avatar module can drive
What it produces, and the questions it deliberately refuses to answer
It produces one 9:16 MP4 per export, from one talking-head take of up to three minutes.
Nothing here tells you which of your ads will work. There is no score and no model claiming to know.
Published performance predictions describe somebody else's placements and audiences, not your account.
Long recordings cannot come in, so nothing gets triaged or sorted here.
There is one speaker per take and no reframing of wide footage.
There is no analytics view, no reporting, no connection to an ad account and no scheduler.
Those are the boundaries. The one number this does move is attempts, which the next section prices.
Count the distinct ideas that entered your account last month, not the files
A high number, with choosing between them as the work, means ranking is worth paying for.
A number like four means ranking four candidates is a rounding error. The constraint is upstream.
The upstream fix is a route where filming and finishing an ad costs four minutes and 20 credits a minute.
That price is what turns an uncertain idea into an attempt rather than a note nobody comes back to.
One finished minute from a fresh take is about 120 credits. Seven days and 300 credits with no card covers two.
Keep ranking whatever pool you already have. It is the right job on a deep archive.
Then add two candidates this week and watch what a bigger pool does to the ranking.
Munch and Cutroom, row by row
The top two rows go to Munch, and a deep pool of clips should weigh them heavily. The rest is what sorting cannot add.
| Munch | Cutroom | |
|---|---|---|
| Ranking existing clips | Its core job | No scoring at all |
| Long input, nothing new filmed | Works from the archive | 3 minutes, somebody films |
| Cut rebuilds when a line goes | Pick a different clip | Delete, and it recompiles |
| Pace change re-cuts everything | The moment is fixed | Chill, normal or fast |
| Adding a genuinely new idea | Sorts what exists | Film a new claim |
| Coverage on a marked phrase | Clip selection, not coverage | Highlight, clip lands |
| Cost of the next attempt | Bounded by the archive | 20 CR a minute |
Questions people ask
- Does Cutroom rank or score my creative?
- No. There is no prediction model and no virality score. The only honest signal is what your own account does with the ads, which is an argument for producing more of them rather than sorting fewer.
- How many distinct ads can one take produce?
- Several. The 100-credit batch is charged once. Each export at 20 credits a finished minute can use a different headline, a different pace and different phrases carrying coverage.
- Is a variation the same as a new candidate?
- Not quite. Six cuts of one recording test the same claim in different clothes. A genuinely new candidate usually needs a new claim, which means filming again, which is why the loop needs to be cheap.
- Who should walk away?
- Teams whose real problem is choosing between forty existing clips. Buy the ranking tool for that. Come here the month the pool stops being forty and starts being four.
Ranking reorders four draws in a game that pays one in thirteen. Cutroom adds new draws, finished as 9:16 files with coverage on the claim.