All agencies · Video Production

Epipheo review

STRONG FIT

The most transparent vendor in this category by a wide margin: three priced tiers, a six-style rate table with timelines attached, use-case bands, a named revision structure, and — uniquely in this library — an explicit statement that full copyright transfers on final payment.

Pricing: several published tiers Published by the agency
Three priced tiers published: Starter $5K-$25K (30-60s, 2 revisions, 4-6 weeks), Signature $25K-$75K (60-120s, professional VO, original score, 3 revisions, 6-10 weeks), Cinematic $75K+ (3D/live action/hybrid, broadcast-ready, 10-16 weeks). source ↗

Score 4.35/5Confidence: mediumLast evaluated 2026-08-18Website

Verdict

Epipheo publishes what every other agency in this category makes you book a call to learn. Three tiers are priced in public: Starter at $5K-$25K for 30-60 seconds with two revision rounds and a 4-6 week turnaround; Signature at $25K-$75K for 60-120 seconds with professional voice talent, original score, three revision rounds and 6-10 weeks; Cinematic at $75K+ for 3D, live action or hybrid up to feature length, broadcast-ready, 10-16 weeks. Underneath that sits a rate table by production style — 2D $15K-$45K, motion graphics $10K-$35K, 3D $35K-$120K, live action $40K-$250K, whiteboard $8K-$25K, hybrid $35K-$150K — each with its own timeline, and a third cut by use case from social ads at $5K-$20K to brand films at $75K+. A buyer can therefore triangulate a budget three different ways before speaking to anyone, and can sanity-check a competitor's quote against a published number. Nothing else evaluated in this category permits that. The rights position is the other reason this scores where it does. "Full copyright transfers on final payment. Source files are available as an add-on" is the only unambiguous ownership statement located anywhere in this library's video records. Rights is the lowest-scoring dimension across the whole category precisely because it is the question nobody answers, and answering it in public — unprompted, on a cost page — is worth more than it looks. Note the second half of that sentence though: copyright transfers, but the working files are a paid extra, so a buyer who expects to re-edit in-house should price that in rather than assume it. Process is specific in the way that matters: five stages, and a revision structure tied to named gates — one round on script, one on storyboard, one on animation — with further rounds billed at a stated hourly rate. That is a materially better disclosure than "unlimited revisions", which sounds generous and defines nothing. What holds it below the top: the client roster (Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Deloitte, Splunk, U.S. Bank, Epson) is strong but self-published with no work attributable to a named engagement, no independent review base was located, and no collaboration tooling is named. Also worth reading with an eye open — the page carrying all this transparency is a cost guide, which is SEO content built to rank for "explainer video cost". That does not make the numbers wrong; they are the vendor's own prices, which is a different thing from a listicle ranking competitors. But it explains why the disclosure exists.

What we verified

Each claim below was checked against a named source, last on 2026-08-18. Follow any of them and check for yourself — that is the point of publishing them.

What other platforms say

No independent review base located first-hand. The unusual strength here is first-party disclosure, not third-party verification.

These are other platforms' numbers, not ours. We report them because they are part of the picture, and we do not average them into our score — our score comes from the published rubric above.

Red flags

How it scored

Craft and portfolio evidence

Strong · vendor-stated

Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Deloitte, Splunk, U.S. Bank, Epson, Pyramid Analytics and POET named. A credible enterprise roster, though self-published and no individual piece of work is attributable to a named engagement.

Scope and pricing transparency

Excellent · verified

Three priced tiers with runtime, revision count and turnaround; a six-row rate table by production style with ranges and timelines; and six use-case bands. Three independent ways to triangulate a budget before any contact. Nothing else in this category comes close.

Process and project management

Strong · verified

Five named stages, with revisions tied to specific gates — one on script, one on storyboard, one on animation — and extra rounds billed at a stated hourly rate. Held below Excellent only because no collaboration tooling is named.

Format and production range

Excellent · verified

2D, motion graphics, 3D, live action, whiteboard and hybrid, from 15-second social ads to feature length, with broadcast-ready deliverables at the top tier.

Rights, ownership and licensing

Strong · verified

"Full copyright transfers on final payment" — the only unambiguous ownership statement in this library's video records. Held below Excellent because source files are a paid add-on rather than standard, and music and talent licence durations are still not addressed.

Turnaround and scheduling

Excellent · verified

Turnaround published per tier (4-6, 6-10, 10-16 weeks) AND independently per production style (4-6 weeks whiteboard through 6-12 weeks live action). Specific, public, and consistent between the two tables.

References and review base

Weak · inferred

No Clutch or G2 profile, review count or third-party rating located from the pages read.

What we could not verify

Sources

Visit their website

This agency has not published a paid trial. What a paid trial is.

Others we evaluated in Video Production

Same rubric, same evaluator, same date range — so these are directly comparable to the verdict above.

See all 13 Video Production agencies we evaluated →

Koolav is paid by neither the agencies it evaluates nor by placement. If you believe an evaluation is wrong, we will re-review it and publish the result either way.