InVideo AI pricing: InVideo pricing plans, InVideo alternatives and InVideo cost per 30 second video

InVideo publishes four individual plans and quotes Team and Enterprise separately. Everything here came off invideo.io/pricing on 31 August 2026. Note that the page loads with the Annual toggle already switched on, so the monthly figure you see first is the annual-billing rate, and each card carries a discount badge of 15 percent, or 10 percent on Elite.

All four paid plans include unlimited exports without a watermark, access to the full model catalog including Seedance 2.5, Veo 3.1, Kling 3.0 and Nano Banana Pro, and access to stock providers including iStock and Storyblocks. Concurrency is one of the real differences between tiers: Plus is described as limited, Max gets twice the concurrency of Plus, Generative ten times and Elite twenty times. If you are generating in batches rather than one at a time, that is worth more than the credit count.

Two lines on the page deserve more attention than they usually get. The first is that model and agent prices are subject to change. The second, in the FAQ, is that InVideo reserves the right to update credit costs at any time without prior notice, because generative models are billed at their original API pricing. Your plan price is fixed for the term. The amount of video that plan buys is not.

This is the number that decides your bill, and it is not on the pricing page. InVideo publishes it in a help center article on generation quality, and the three rates are far apart.

The arithmetic behind that last column is simple. The Plus plan is $17 a month for 750 credits, which is about 2.27 cents a credit, so a 30 second Ultra render at 80 credits costs about $1.81 and the same clip with a library actor at 90 credits costs about $2.04.

There is a second billing model layered on top, and it is the one most likely to surprise you. Individual video models are priced per second rather than per minute, and the total is the model's credits per second multiplied by the duration. InVideo's own example range is wide: a quick Kling 2.6 Standard clip might cost half a credit, while a Veo 3.1 clip at 4K with audio can cost more than 10. Those are per-second figures, so a ten second Veo 3.1 shot at the top of that range is 100 or more credits, which is more than an entire minute of Ultra generation.

One piece of good news that runs against the trend in this category: downloading and exporting your finished video does not consume credits. Several competitors gate export behind a paid tier or bill it separately. InVideo does not, and every paid plan exports without a watermark.

It depends entirely on which mode you generate in, and the range is so wide that the allowance figure on its own is not usable for planning. Here is the same 750 credit Plus allowance expressed as finished 30 second videos.

Eighty times, from 750 videos to 9, inside one plan. That is the single most useful thing to know about InVideo pricing, and it is why a plan price quoted without a generation mode is meaningless.

The pricing page makes this harder rather than easier. Each plan card explains the allowance in image generations rather than video: the Plus card reads that 750 credits is enough for 300 Nano Banana Pro or 600 Nano Banana 2 generations. Those are stills. A buyer comparing video tools reads a card about a video tool and is shown a number denominated in images, which are the cheapest thing the credits can buy. We are not suggesting that is deliberate, but the effect is the same either way: the headline overstates the video capacity by a wide margin unless you plan to work exclusively in Basic mode.

If you are budgeting, do it backwards. Decide the mode your finished ads actually need, multiply by the length you publish at, and only then pick a plan. For most brands running generative creative, Plus is nine to eighteen videos a month, not seven hundred.

Barely. InVideo has the flattest credit ladder of any tool we have measured in this category, and the difference between the cheapest and dearest plan is close to a rounding error on a per-credit basis.

Paying 53 times more a month buys about 6.6 percent off the price of a credit. So the tiers are not a volume discount and should not be bought as one. What they actually sell is capacity of a different kind: concurrency, which rises from limited on Plus to twenty times that on Elite, storage from 20 GB to 10 TB, avatars and voice clones from 4 to 200, and iStock credits from 100 to 5,000.

That is a genuinely useful thing to know, because it makes the buying decision cleaner than it looks. If you need more video and nothing else, the honest move is to stay on a low tier and buy top-up credits, which InVideo sells on demand and which last 12 months from purchase rather than expiring at the end of the month. If you need to generate twenty jobs at once, or you have a team, or you want 200 voice clones, then the tier is worth it on its own terms.

It is worth being fair here: a flat ladder is not a criticism. It is more honest than a steeply discounted top tier that quietly locks you into a volume you never reach. It just means the upgrade decision has to be made on features, not on the price of video.

For some UGC-adjacent jobs yes, for the one that matters most no, and the reason is not render quality.

What InVideo does well is volume and speed on video that does not need a specific real person in it. Product montages, feature explainers, promo cuts, listicle-style social video, faceless channels and localized variants of the same script are all comfortably inside what a prompt-to-video tool does at a price no human editor can match. If you need forty variants of a product video to test hooks against each other, this is a reasonable purchase and Basic mode makes it almost free.

Where it stops is the thing that makes UGC work as an ad format. UGC reads as UGC because a real person is holding the phone: handheld framing, imperfect light, a real kitchen or bathroom, hands entering the shot, the product being physically used and reacted to. Generated footage and library actors approximate the look and increasingly do it well, but they cannot produce the specific detail that makes a viewer believe the person actually owns the thing.

There is also a claims problem that is independent of quality. A synthetic presenter or a library actor delivering a first-person endorsement, saying they bought the product and it changed their routine, is a testimonial from someone who did not have that experience. That is the shape the FTC rule on fake reviews and testimonials addresses, and a better render does not make it safer. Third-person narration, demonstration and explanation are on firm ground. The moment the script says I tried this, you need a real person who did.

It depends which part of InVideo you are replacing, so here is the routing rather than one answer. All the prices below were verified first-party in the last two days.

And the case for staying, which most alternative pages will not make. InVideo's model catalog is the broadest in this comparison, it runs Seedance, Veo, Kling and Nano Banana behind one subscription rather than making you hold four, exports carry no watermark on any paid plan and cost no credits, and its Basic mode is the cheapest way we know to produce a large volume of stock-assembled social video. If your work sits in that shape, switching to save money is unlikely to work.

We are not on either side of that decision. UGCMarketplace does not render video, does not supply creators, and is not a substitute for InVideo or anything else on this page. We write the brief and the scene-by-scene script, with the opening three seconds spelled out and the technical spec attached, which is the document every one of these tools assumes you already have. You can generate one now and paste it straight into whichever renderer you end up buying.