Storyblocks

Name: Storyblocks
Brand: Storyblocks
Rating: 4.5 (2898 reviews)

Home of unlimited stock video, audio, and images. Built to help your business create more effective video.

Est 2009|Raised $18.5M

LinkedIn 13K|Website|Web traffic 3.4M|FTEs 130|HQ Arlington, Virginia, US

MarketsContent Creation & Design

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- **Storyblocks vs Envato Elements** - Envato publicly documents its pricing and is often positioned as a broad-asset alternative; Storyblocks is more video-centric and offers an unlimited-download subscription model that some purchasers prefer for footage and audio. - Community comparisons also reference differences in enterprise indemnity and contract terms; such contractual details should be verified in the current vendor agreements. - **Storyblocks vs Motion Array** - Motion Array is often cited as a strong option for editors who prioritize templates and motion-graphics workflow support. Buyers should evaluate template availability and compatibility with their NLEs. - **Market adoption signals** - Review activity on major review platforms indicates meaningful adoption among creators. Other community channels show clusters of dissatisfaction, often related to licensing and support.

	Storyblocks	Envato Elements	Motion Array
Starting Price	Published pricing available from the vendor; Business offerings are custom; third-party listings sometimes cite entry-level amounts	Pricing published on official pricing page (varies by plan and billing)	Pricing published on official pricing page; subscription-based
Primary fit	Video-first creators requiring footage, audio, and templates under a subscription	Broad creative teams needing a wide variety of assets (graphics, web, video, etc.)	Video editors and motion designers who rely on templates and editing workflows
Key strength	Video-centric library combined with an unlimited-download subscription model; enterprise licensing pathways available	Very broad asset breadth with publicly documented pricing	Strong template and motion graphics ecosystem tailored to editors
Key weakness	Reported licensing-tier ambiguity and variability in search and asset quality	Quality variability across asset types and license nuances for some use cases	Library fit varies by project; some friction reported around trials/subscriptions

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Storyblocks vs Envato Elements
- Envato publicly documents its pricing and is often positioned as a broad-asset alternative; Storyblocks is more video-centric and offers an unlimited-download subscription model that some purchasers prefer for footage and audio.
- Community comparisons also reference differences in enterprise indemnity and contract terms; such contractual details should be verified in the current vendor agreements.
Storyblocks vs Motion Array
- Motion Array is often cited as a strong option for editors who prioritize templates and motion-graphics workflow support. Buyers should evaluate template availability and compatibility with their NLEs.
Market adoption signals
- Review activity on major review platforms indicates meaningful adoption among creators. Other community channels show clusters of dissatisfaction, often related to licensing and support.

	Storyblocks	Envato Elements	Motion Array
Starting Price	Published pricing available from the vendor; Business offerings are custom; third-party listings sometimes cite entry-level amounts	Pricing published on official pricing page (varies by plan and billing)	Pricing published on official pricing page; subscription-based
Primary fit	Video-first creators requiring footage, audio, and templates under a subscription	Broad creative teams needing a wide variety of assets (graphics, web, video, etc.)	Video editors and motion designers who rely on templates and editing workflows
Key strength	Video-centric library combined with an unlimited-download subscription model; enterprise licensing pathways available	Very broad asset breadth with publicly documented pricing	Strong template and motion graphics ecosystem tailored to editors
Key weakness	Reported licensing-tier ambiguity and variability in search and asset quality	Quality variability across asset types and license nuances for some use cases	Library fit varies by project; some friction reported around trials/subscriptions