Adobe Stock consists of curated asset collections that allow users to explore diverse collections of high-resolution, royalty-free, stock assets for use in digital projects.
$29
per month
Foleon
Score 7.5 out of 10
Mid-Size Companies (51-1,000 employees)
Foleon is a content creation platform designed to make it easy to create interactive content that is on brand. It provides B2B companies with a drag & drop editor and interactive Foleon Doc format used to create bespoke digital content experiences that are engaging, intelligent, and scalable. Founded in Amsterdam with locations in the US and Europe, Foleon is on a mission to empower companies to create the content their audience craves.
N/A
Pricing
Adobe Stock
Foleon
Editions & Modules
Individuals
Starting at $29
per month
Teams
Starting at $29.99
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Adobe Stock
Foleon
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
—
When it comes to creating compelling content, we know one size doesn't fit all. So we offer custom plans that align with your business needs today and scale as you do.
I think across the board, Adobe Stock is in line with all of these. It does seem to have better (and more) options than tools like Pixabay, but there are instances where we find something niche and specific on Pixabay that we did not find on Adobe Stock. I think Getty and Canva …
the main thing about Adobe Stock is first its integration with creative cloud you wont see this feature in any platform. the library is rich with high quality assets from vector to videos their offering is really good. their pricing structure is fair to everyone. the trust …
In my opinion, Adobe Stock is better value for money than the Shutterstock plan, and the free assets available on Adobe Stock are of higher quality than what can be found on Pexles or Unsplash.
The quality and number of images available make Adobe Stock stand out from other options. It's clear artists and creatives trust Adobe Stock with their portfolio - which is apparent in the variety of results provided from a search. The filtering options are more robust than …
Adobe Stock has a better selection than most. It also has a free trial to help you decide if the price is worth it. The other companies are free but you may not find the right image or it will take longer to find a unique picture for your needs. Adobe Stock adds new photos …
Adobe Stock stacks well against Getty, Depositphotos, Wix, and Unsplash. Although I sometimes find their stock imagery options to be less robust than Getty, I do like how purchased assets integrate nicely into CC libraries.
While adobe stock is similar to these products it is also very different. Photo stock sites and uses credits. This means sometimes you have to figure out how much credit is worth. Annoyingly this can get confusing for credit values. Adobe Stock is very straight toward and the …
We selected Stock as we have the entire suite of Adobe products and this pairs nicely as well as with its ability to easily integrate into PPT presentations and the Microsoft suite of products.
Adobe Stock is heads and shoulders better than Shutterstock. I found myself frustrated that Shutter stock didn't have what I needed or was too confusing to navigate to the original image due to so many low-quality fakes and duplicates. I soon learned that Adobe stock didn't …
Adobe Stock has the best automation for creating big data business creation for many users and is powerful in setting business security and managing larger data analytics and is best in integrating other tools and has best marketing aspects than other features in the field and …
Adobe Stock is less expensive and has a wider variety than other paid stock imagery offerings. They are far better than any unpaid image outlets as well.
Generally, Adobe Stock is cheaper than its big competitors but still has many of the same or similar images, though not quite the breadth of photography/illustrations either. However, it has significantly more options than its cheaper (or free) alternatives as well. The …
Adobe Stock is very user friendly. It’s the only one with full integration into other Adobe products. It’s also much more affordable than others like Getty. While it’s lacking some editorial content, there is a wide selection of images to choose from that stand out against the …
In comparison to other options, Adobe Stock is far more user-friendly. Adobe Stock has helped me find quality photos. One-stop licensing's convenience and variety were important. Instead of buying photos per image, we usually find something similar at Adobe and license it under …
both Adobe Stock and shutter stock fulfill the same function, I believe that both can satisfy their customers, however, the position that adobe has against shutter stock is immense, making there more confidence in adobe, in prices and what it offers each one according to the …
I have found that compared to Getty Images, Adobe stock is much more user-friendly. Adobe Stock has easy-to-use filters that make finding the perfect image much easier. I also believe that Adobe Stock has a wider variety of photos compared to Getty.
I've always had an easier time finding quality photos I needed on Adobe Stock. Other services like Shutterstock work fine, it's a personal preference for the catalogue of resources that Adobe curated vs other services.
Adobe Stock was given to us as initially an inexpensive add-on to our Creative Cloud subscription. Once the trial pricing expired, we found it so convenient, that we continued subscribing. The convenience of one-stop licensing and its wide variety was key. You do find some …
We use iStock and Adobe equally because we have subscriptions. They are pretty equal altho sometimes I think it's easier to find candid shots on iStock.
Pexels offered some great free stuff, but Adobe Stock has been the site of choice for graphic designers due to the size and quality of the images and videos that exist on the site. Budgetary choices were made by our company to use both, but the preference overall went to Adobe.
For on-demand buying, Adobe Stock wins in flexibility and per-image rates. Shutterstock offers the simpler buying method, though. Shutterstock has a larger collection of stock images, lower prices, and cheaper extended licenses if you buy them in bulk. Adobe Stock is better …
Foleon
makes it easy to create interactive and absolute material relevant to our
organization's brand so that it is accessible to our readers while allowing us
Well suited for background images and graphics where you want to channel an idea or theme that is known to the general population, e.g., a football field for a social media post related to a company fantasy league or a child holding crayons to promote a donation drive for local schools in need. Where it is less appropriate are images involving people and it's not necessarily Adobe's fault but it's very hard when you consider "your people" unique and want to reflect them in a way that feels genuine when you're creating graphics to represent your company. Many of the best shot set-ups and styles for pictures involving people that Adobe creates have people in them who just don't look like "our people."
I like the ability to create dynamic content and collaborate with others on the platform. Our customer service representative Kyle is amazing and he is always there to help us along the way. He has been a great addition to us and helped us with user engagement.
It does much more than images however for somebody that doesn't have experience using video or fonts it can be too much.
Cost can be a barrier for images that are not free. Your adobe membership does not transfer over to adobe stock unfortunately.
I have noticed certain images being used by others, some of their more popular images are often used and duplicated throughout my industry. This isn't a fault of them, but ideally, they would update their images more often.
Because it is easy to use, has a robust database of all kinds of photos, has industry photos that we serve clients in, is quick and easy to download the licensed images, easy to find similar images, cost effective, acts as a source of quality images we can use on high resolution art.
the user interface is very basic their filter function is difficult for beginners to use although after sometime of use you wont find any problem in that, their library is good but again. they still have to work on their library volume with current quality standards. apart from interface which is a personal perspective everything is amazing in this platform.
In comparison to other options, Adobe Stock is far more user-friendly. Adobe Stock has helped me find quality photos. One-stop licensing's convenience and variety were important. Instead of buying photos per image, we usually find something similar at Adobe and license it under our subscription. I prefer Adobe's curated resources over other services. Adobe Stock's filters make finding the right image easy.
Foleon makes it easy to create interactive and absolute material relevant to our organization's brand so that it is accessible to our readers while allowing us to create personalized digital content experiences.
I used stock photos for my blog posting on medium and website creation. I found adobe stock a very amazing site for high-quality images.
It has resolved the issue where I would spend countless hours looking for a photo on Google or other stock-image websites, no other stock photos website is perfect and stunning like Adobe Stock. Overall, it's a fantastic time-saver.
Overall, I found images impact more than words while blog posting on medium and other social media, so I can say that Adobe Stock helps me in growing my startup…