Choose InVideo for Agent Two creation and revisions on a shared timeline. Choose Wave.video when video editing, text-to-video, live broadcasts and hosted players belong together. Both use source material and support edits after generation.
InVideo vs Wave.video at a glance
| Question | InVideo | Wave.video |
|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Agent-assisted editing with a shared timeline | Video creation alongside broadcasting and hosting |
| Starting material | Prompts, scripts and uploaded footage | Text, article URLs, stock and uploaded footage |
| Editing | Chat edits, storyboard and multitrack timeline | Linked storyboard, scene media, text and timing |
| Review step | Script and storyboard controls before generation | Prepare the text or summary, then refine generated scenes |
| Usage | Generation credits depend on model, duration and resolution | Editor, streaming and hosting allowances; optional premium stock |
Start with the work your team repeats
An editing team can inspect InVideo’s uploaded-footage search and chat revisions. A team running live events can inspect Wave.video’s studio, destinations and replay hosting. Budget the operations and distribution your team repeats; an older Agent One description or a mixed-billing price chart does not capture the current choice.
How InVideo works
InVideo’s current product supports the following workflow. InVideo’s current Agent Two workflow combines AI creation with uploaded footage and a multitrack timeline. You can search footage, shape a script or storyboard and make batch changes through chat. Multiplayer supports working on the project together. Older Agent One-only descriptions miss the current editing controls.
Generated media and uploaded footage can be part of the same edit. Evaluate whether the draft preserves your source details and whether a change can be made through chat or directly on the timeline. Having an agent does not remove the need to inspect narration, visual meaning and the final cut.
How Wave.video works
Wave.video’s current product supports the following workflow. Wave.video creates a video from text or an article URL. Keep the text or shorten it with AI, choose the stock preference, audio mood, template and format, then generate the project. Its storyboard links the script to scenes and lets you change text, footage and timing.
Replace suggested stock with your own clips or images where the explanation needs specific footage. The text-to-video guide notes that some premium stock can require an additional purchase; you see and approve that cost before rendering. This is an AI-assisted creation workflow alongside direct editing, not a manual-only suite.
Branding, review and delivery
InVideo’s shared editing workflow supports recurring team production. Check the selected subscription for the creator seats and output settings you need. Compare an actual recurring change—such as replacing a product shot or shortening a section—rather than a generic claim of faster creation.
Wave.video includes a brand manager, customizable hosted players and video landing pages. Its live studio supports guests, screen sharing, scenes and multiple broadcast destinations. Compare the actual hosting and streaming allowances when these are part of your weekly work.
Before publishing, review the message, factual details, visual choices and audio together. For localization, check the actual voice and terminology you need. The number of supported voices or languages does not establish output quality for your content.
Current pricing and usage units
Billing terms, regional offers and credit units are kept separate below.
| Tool | Checked plan reference | Usage to budget |
|---|---|---|
| InVideo | Selected monthly plans: Basic $9 and Pro $30/seat; 190 and 1,000 credits | Generation credits depend on model, duration and resolution |
| Wave.video | Monthly Streamer $20, Creator $30, Business $60; annual equivalents $16/$24/$48 | Editor, streaming and hosting allowances; optional premium stock |
| ngram | Basic $29 monthly or $23.20/month equivalent annually | Generation credits at the selected model rate |
InVideo pricing: The selected monthly pricing showed Basic at $9 with 190 credits and Pro at $30 per seat with 1,000 credits. Credits reset monthly, including annual subscriptions, and do not roll over. Generation cost depends on the model and settings. The credit guide separates existing-video editing and downloading from charged AI generation; it does not mean every AI revision is free.
Wave.video pricing: The selected monthly prices were Streamer $20, Creator $30 and Business $60; annual monthly equivalents were $16, $24 and $48. Creator includes videos up to 30 minutes, captions and text-to-speech. Business extends editing to two hours and 60fps and increases streaming and hosting allowances. Paid plans support MP4 downloads. Budget premium stock and the relevant traffic or storage needs separately.
ngram pricing includes 1,000 credits/month on Free. Basic costs $29/month with monthly billing and includes 3,000 credits per cycle; annual billing is $23.20/month equivalent with 36,000 credits supplied upfront. The base rate for premium AI video generation is 10 credits per second, with a cheaper model at 3. Share publicly or embed on Free; use a paid plan for MP4 downloads and Basic or above for unlisted links.
Compare the same billing term, creator count and delivery requirements. Estimate the initial generation and the revisions you expect. Do not divide one tool’s credits by another’s rate or compare different currencies as if the prices use the same units.
Automation and team workflows
InVideo workflow and plans: InVideo Remote Agents connects external assistants to its editor through MCP, with footage import, shared timeline edits and output workflows. This is broader than a single model-generation endpoint; check the supported operation you need.
Wave.video workflow and plans: For distribution, Wave.video combines a live studio with hosted players and embeds. Check the channels, guests, duration and hosting allowances of the selected plan. Creation, broadcasting and hosting are distinct requirements even when one subscription includes all three.
See an article become a video with ngram
The example below uses GitHub’s published CI/CD guide. It shows the actual filled prompt, source, paper-cutout style and generated explainer. Read the input and watch the result, then adapt the brief for your own article. This is ngram output from a public article, not output from InVideo or Wave.video.
From this input to this video
GitHub’s published article becomes a paper-cutout explainer of its four-step workflow.
Prompt
Turn this blog post at https://github.blog/enterprise-software/ci-cd/build-ci-cd-pipeline-github-actions-four-steps/ into a 30-second explainer video. Pull the key takeaways and summarize them as short, punchy paper-cutout scenes. Keep the article's own tone: friendly and practical. Format it for LinkedIn in landscape 16:9. Close on a call to action to read the full GitHub guide.
Selected style
Paper cutout
Read the video transcript
CI/CD used to belong to DevOps experts. With GitHub Actions, it lives right in your repo. Setup is simple: drop one file in your repo, and it works. No hardware to buy, no webhooks to wire. Then, four steps. Pick a repository. Open the Actions tab and choose a workflow. Push a change to trigger it. And watch it run in the visualizer and live logs. Start small, and make it work for you. The payoff: trusting your code works after you merge. Read the full guide on the GitHub Blog.
Turn a published article into an explainer
Watch the actual ngram video made from GitHub’s CI/CD guide. Read its input, then adapt the brief for your own article.
Bring the article
Paste a public article URL or provide its text. Upload exported footage from Pictory when it helps tell the story.
Adapt the brief
Fill in your audience, takeaways and call to action. Choose the style, duration and aspect ratio, then attach any files and select your Brand Kit in ngram.
Approve and refine
Review the plan containing the script, approve generation and inspect the result. Request revisions or another version when needed.
Make it yours
Fill in your details here, or continue and finish your brief in ngram.
Video generation uses credits. Review your estimate in ngram. MP4 downloads require Basic or higher.
How credits workPaste your public source URL or provide the article text. Fill in the audience, takeaways and call to action, then choose the style, aspect ratio and duration. In ngram, attach any supporting files, select your configured Brand Kit and enable captions when wanted. Review and approve the plan containing the script before generation.
For existing footage, export an authorized video from InVideo or Wave.video and upload the file. Describe the new audience and message; the export becomes source footage while the editable project stays in its original app. After updating your article, tell ngram what changed and request a revision. For a second format, request another version and select its aspect ratio and duration.
Continue with the blog-to-video template, blog-to-video workflow, ngram vs InVideo or ngram vs Wave.video.
How to choose
Choose InVideo for Agent Two creation and revisions on a shared timeline. Choose Wave.video when video editing, text-to-video, live broadcasts and hosted players belong together. Both use source material and support edits after generation.
Consider ngram when your recurring job is turning business material into an explanation with a reusable brief and a plan you approve. Use the demonstrated article workflow to judge that fit. Keep the original editor when you need to continue working on its native project.
How this comparison was reviewed
This comparison uses the official product, help, pricing and developer sources linked here. The recommendations describe workflow fit; they are not a timed or scored competitor-output test. The ngram example is a real generated video with its input shown. No anonymous reviewer claim or weighted numerical score is used to establish a winner.
Frequently asked questions
Can both InVideo and Wave.video create videos with AI?
Yes. InVideo’s current Agent Two workflow combines AI creation with uploaded footage and a multitrack timeline. You can search footage, shape a script or storyboard and make batch changes through chat. Multiplayer supports working on the project together. Older Agent One-only descriptions miss the current editing controls. Wave.video creates a video from text or an article URL. Keep the text or shorten it with AI, choose the stock preference, audio mood, template and format, then generate the project. Its storyboard links the script to scenes and lets you change text, footage and timing.
How do InVideo and Wave.video compare on price?
InVideo Basic is $9/seat/month with 190 credits; Pro is $30/seat/month with 1,000 credits. These are monthly subscriptions, and generation cost depends on the selected model and output. Wave.video Streamer is $20/month or $16/month equivalent annually. Creator, which includes editing videos up to 30 minutes, is $30 or $24; streaming, hosting and premium stock have their own allowances.
Can I move an editable project into ngram?
Bring supported source material: export the footage you want to reuse, upload it and add the audience and message. Keep the editable original in its source app. Approve ngram’s new plan before generation.
Which is better for live streaming, InVideo or Wave.video?
Wave.video offers a live studio with guests, screen sharing, scene changes and multiple broadcast destinations, alongside hosted players. InVideo’s role in this comparison is creating and revising the video itself. Choose Wave.video’s relevant plan when the requirement includes running live broadcasts.
How do ngram branding and Free sharing work?
Select your configured Brand Kit in the composer and turn captions on when wanted. Free includes 1,000 credits/month, public sharing and embeds. Choose a paid plan for MP4 downloads; unlisted links start with Basic.
Create your first video with ngram, or talk to sales.
