Source-led profile · Evidence checked 2026-08-30

Verified essentials

AI Video software

Captions

Evaluate Captions by device-specific features, AI credits, API billing, biometric and training-data terms, actor consent and approved social output.

Decision first. Use the compact answer below before opening the complete research record.

Evaluate Captions on an approved test ↗Compare

Decision summary

The answer in one scan.

Decision-critical facts remain separate from the deeper editorial analysis.

Best fit	mobile-first captions, AI edits, actors and social video
Pricing	Current pricing must be confirmed for the exact model, plan and region.
Evidence boundary	Official-source capabilities and economics; output quality remains a buyer-run test.
Confirm before buying	CAUTION — strong mobile production breadth, but platform, model and credit path must be fixed before budgeting.

Continue your research

Move from profile to a sharper decision.

These links are explicit editorial relationships, not keyword matches or sponsored placements.

comparison

Captions vs Submagic: Generate the Video or Finish the Short?

Compare Captions and Submagic by mobile production, caption finishing, credit meters, device limits and long-video add-ons.

Continue →

best

Best AI Tools for Turning Long Videos into Shorts

Choose an AI clipper by source-minute economics, context integrity, captions, crop, workflow and approved-clip yield.

Continue →

guide

How to Evaluate AI-Generated Short Clips Before They Publish

A reproducible approval test for AI-selected clips covering context, claims, captions, speaker crop, brand and publishing.

Continue →

Good fit if

The workflow removes measurable production work

A bounded pilot produces approved assets at a defensible total cost.
The documented controls match the shots, edits or delivery path your team needs.
Rights, consent and provenance checks can be retained with each published asset.

Look elsewhere if

The demo is stronger than the operating case

The budget counts generated output but ignores rejected attempts and correction labour.
Your team cannot reconcile model, credits and approval state for each job.
The purchase depends on output quality that has not been tested on representative material.

Commercial context

Compare the closest documented workflows.

Alternatives stay within the same vertical and use current internal profile routes.

Runway

multi-model generative video production and API workflows

View evidence profile →

OpenAI Sora Video API

programmatic video generation with synchronized audio

View evidence profile →

Google Flow

Veo-based scene generation and filmmaking workflow

View evidence profile →

Open the complete Captions buying analysisMobile social video production.

Captions has grown beyond automatic subtitles into a mobile-first production environment: AI edits, clips, actors, ads, translation, generated media and a separate API. That breadth makes the product interesting and makes a single “videos per month” estimate unreliable.

The reviewed public price table explicitly says its displayed prices and features reflect iOS plans. Buyers planning desktop or API work need three separate records.

> Distinctive strength: Social edits, avatars and captions. > > Where it stops being an advantage: Device and privacy controls need testing.

The decision in 60 seconds

Buyer requirement	What the evidence says	Shortlist consequence
Mobile production	iOS exposes the clearest plan and feature surface	Buy only after testing on the device used by the team
Credit demand	Different tools consume seconds, actions or model-specific fixed rates	Build a workflow-level ledger
Desktop parity	Duration, format and feature limits differ	Reject if the required desktop path cannot reproduce the mobile result
API automation	Styled captions and Mirage video have separate billing units	Keep API cost outside app-credit estimates
People and data	Voice, face and content may be processed by AI partners and improvement systems	Obtain consent and approve retention before upload

The plan table is only the first meter

The official iOS pricing surface lists Max at $24.99 per month with 500 credits, Scale at $69.99 with 1,400, Scale 2x at $139.99 with 2,800 and Scale 4x at $279.99 with 5,600. Eligible paid credits can roll forward, capped at three times the monthly allowance; cancellation and downgrade can forfeit balances.

Official usage documentation then assigns different rates:

Prompt to Video: 8 credits per output second;
AI Creator, Ads and Skits: 1 credit per output second;
AI Edit: 10–40 credits, with model and algorithm variation;
chat editing: message and action credits plus generative requests;
third-party video models: model-specific fixed costs.

At 8 credits per second, Max's 500 credits support 62.5 submitted seconds before add-ons and corrections. At 1 credit per second they support 500. A plan name is not a capacity statement.

Device limits can invalidate a workflow

Official help documents different iOS and desktop limits. AI Edit is vertical and has different maximum duration by device; editor format, resolution and feature availability also vary. Build the test on the device the production team will use. A successful iPhone workflow is not evidence that the desktop editor has the same control.

The current public pricing page warns that the prices shown are iOS-specific. Capture regional/app-store checkout and tax before approving budget.

API is a fourth cost surface

Current official API pricing lists styled captions at $0.15 per input minute rounded up, and Mirage Video 1 at $0.175 per output second in six-second billing increments. That means a 10.2-second Mirage result bills 12 seconds, or $2.10 before retries and review.

Do not apply app credit value to API usage. Keep subscription production and API automation on separate rows.

Run a device-and-mode matrix

Produce the same 30-second social ad through manual editing, AI Edit and AI Ads/Creator on the intended device. Record output seconds, credits, model, edit actions, correction minutes and accepted result. Repeat one path through the API if automation is planned.

Check captions, product claims, actor continuity, lip-sync, generated B-roll rights and the final crop. Preserve every generated actor and voice consent record.

Captions should be excluded if

the required feature or duration is unavailable on the production device;
the team cannot authorize biometric or third-party AI processing for supplied media;
the credit basket cannot survive one full correction pass within the chosen plan.

Better alternatives for specific buyers

Alternative	Stronger when	Trade-off to retain
Submagic	caption finishing and branded short output are the narrow primary job	Magic Clips and API minutes remain separate add-ons
OpusClip	long-form source throughput and clip selection are more important than mobile generation	approved-clip yield and data terms still need a benchmark
VEED	browser-based editing and team collaboration outweigh mobile-first workflow	web plan and AI allowances require separate verification

Captions verdict

Captions can consolidate a surprising amount of social production, especially for mobile creators. Its economic risk is assuming all features consume the same credits or exist on every device. Fix the platform and production mode first, then calculate.

Primary action: Open Captions' current AI usage table ↗, lock the device and feature path, and proceed only after credits, consent, data handling and a corrected export reconcile.

Official sources

Captions privacy, biometric and AI-partner data handling ↗

Sources checked 2026-08-31. Recheck device, region and model availability before purchase.

Full evidence record9 fields · official links · dates · states