Short answer

If your daily pain is running projects - briefs, proxy reviews, guest approvals and auditable delivery receipts - a production management platform like Kreatli is usually the faster path to time-to-value because it is built around the production lifecycle and client-facing review UX.

If your primary problem is managing a growing media library - large-scale ingest, complex metadata, AI tagging and enterprise-grade archive workflows - a cloud MAM such as Iconik is purpose-built for that role and scales more predictably for archival governance.

Most mature teams end up using both: Kreatli to run projects and Iconik for canonical archive and reuse, connected by simple automations that move masters and metadata on approval.

What these products actually are

• Kreatli - an end-to-end production management platform focused on the brief-to-approval lifecycle: intake templates, project-scoped workspaces, proxy playback, review pages, guest reviewer flows and approval receipts. It’s designed for producers who need a one-place view of briefs, reviews and deliveries. Features Breakdown.

• Iconik - a cloud MAM (media asset management) that centralizes ingest, indexing, deep metadata, AI enrichment and search across large media collections. Iconik targets teams that require durable archives, complex metadata schemas, and tight NLE roundtrips.

The simplest distinction: Kreatli runs the project; Iconik manages the library.

Side-by-side comparison

When to pick Kreatli

Opt for Kreatli when most of the following are true:

• The bottleneck is approvals, not archive search. You need faster review rounds and a professional client review experience.

• Producers spend time hunting context across Slack, drives and emails - you need one canonical project surface.

• You want a fast pilot (days/weeks) rather than a months-long enterprise MAM roll-out. Kreatli’s project templates and project-scoped UX shorten onboarding.

What you gain: lower friction for client reviews, auditable approvals, and immediate reduction in producer toil.

When to pick Iconik

Choose Iconik when these conditions hold:

• You own a large, growing media archive that needs AI enrichment, transcript indexing and robust search across thousands of assets.

• You require deep NLE integrations or agent-based ingest from multiple production locations.

• Governance, predictable annual budget and enterprise controls (user tiers, audit logs, lifecycle policies) are primary concerns.

What you gain: scalable archive, advanced metadata for reuse, and enterprise governance.

Why many teams use both

A hybrid is the pragmatic answer for most production organisations:

1. Kreatli runs the live project - producers create the brief, host proxies, collect timecode comments, and obtain approvals in Kreatli so nothing important is scattered across email or chat.

2. Iconik stores the masters - on final approval, masters (with enriched metadata) are copied into Iconik where they become discoverable to marketing, legal and future productions.

This keeps each system focused on its strengths: speed and client UX for Kreatli, governance and discovery for Iconik.

Integration and migration practicals - an actionable checklist

If you plan to pilot a hybrid setup, follow this checklist to avoid common traps:

1. Map your metadata model: align required fields (project name, shoot date, talent, rights) so data moves cleanly. Export as sidecar JSON/XMP to preserve portability.

2. Automate proxy generation: on ingest or upload, trigger a transcode to produce streaming proxies that live in Kreatli for review.

3. Define ownership states: use a simple status field (e.g., working vs archived) so producers and archive teams do not edit the same record concurrently.

4. Test a single pilot: ingest a real shoot, run a full review in Kreatli, approve, then copy masters into Iconik and verify search and transcripts. Measure times and missing fields.

5. Model TCO: include seat fees (Kreatli), archive storage (Iconik + cloud buckets), egress and professional services costs for initial migration. Iconik generally uses annual pricing tiers; Kreatli offers lower-friction pilots with per-user plans.

30-day pilot: validate the hybrid approach

Week 0 - Prep

• Select one representative project (short commercial or campaign). Configure a Kreatli project template and an Iconik ingest target. Map 10 core metadata fields.

Week 1 - Ingest & proxy

• Ingest masters to your archive or Iconik agent. Generate proxies and push proxies into Kreatli for immediate review.

Week 2 - Review & approval

• Run a 48–72 hour review window in Kreatli, collect timecode comments, consolidate fixes and obtain approval.

Week 3 - Handoff

• Trigger automation to copy final masters + metadata to Iconik. Verify transcripts, AI tags and searchability for the asset in Iconik.

Week 4 - Measure & decide

• KPIs: time-to-first-comment, average review rounds, time-to-archive, and time-to-find (search test). Evaluate friction and the cost of each step.

If KPIs meet targets, extend the integration to additional projects and automate more metadata fields.

Cost & procurement signals to watch

• Seat vs storage: Kreatli pricing is seat/tier oriented and flexible so able to support any tram size; Iconik pricing is typically annual and designed for scale - map both to your usage patterns to avoid surprises.

• Egress fees: copying masters across clouds or regions can incur egress costs. Design handoffs to minimize cross-region transfers.

• Implementation time: full MAM implementations often need professional services; a production platform pilot (Kreatli) typically requires less configuration, which shortens time-to-value.

Common objections and practical answers

“A single MAM should be enough.”
For many teams, a MAM handles archive needs but introduces friction for client-facing review and rapid production cycles. Using a project layer avoids slowing down producers and editors.

“Do we really need two vendors?”
Specialized tools reduce customization and maintenance overhead. Integrations (webhooks, APIs) let you keep a smooth UX while letting each platform do what it does best.

Quick FAQ

Q: Can Kreatli replace Iconik for long-term archives?
A: Depends on your end needs. Kreatli focuses on production lifecycle and approvals; Iconik is optimized for archive-scale metadata, AI enrichment and NLE roundtrips. Hybrid patterns are the most practical for many organizations.

Q: Do Iconik and Kreatli integrate?
A: Yes - both platforms expose APIs and webhooks. Typical integrations publish proxies to Kreatli for review and copy masters with enriched metadata into Iconik on approval.

Q: Which option is cheaper for a 5-person creative team?
A: For short pilots and active project work, Kreatli’s seat/tiered plans can offer lower TCO. For long-term archive needs and many users, Iconik’s annual pricing provides predictable scale - always model seat + storage for your scenario.

Conclusion - recommendation & next step

Kreatli and Iconik solve complementary problems: Kreatli makes producers faster and client-facing workflows auditable; Iconik makes media discoverable, reusable and governed at scale. For most production teams the recommended path is to pilot Kreatli for project orchestration and keep Iconik (or another MAM) as the canonical archive, automating the handoff so producers never worry about metadata drift.