JW Player (or JWP) is a video platform boasting 40,000 broadcasters, publishers, and other video-driven brands whose business relies on video as users. It provides these companies with a way to accelerate and scale their video strategy and is a video platform that can be used to stream video, engage audiences on any screen, and monetize content.
N/A
StreamShark Live Streaming Platform
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
StreamShark is a live streaming solution that provides options for large enterprises as well as individuals or businesses with small to medium requirements.
$159
per month ($1,908 billed annually)
Pricing
JW Player
StreamShark Live Streaming Platform
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Standard Annual Live Streaming
$159
per month ($1,908 billed annually)
Standard Monthly Live Streaming
$199
per month (billed monthly)
Team Annual Live Streaming
$399
per month ($4,788 billed annually)
Team Monthly Live Streaming
$499
per month (billed monthly)
Business Annual Live Streaming
$799
per month ($9,588 billed annually)
Business Monthly Live Streaming
$999
per month (billed monthly)
Enterprise
custom pricing
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
JW Player
StreamShark Live Streaming Platform
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
Full pricing breakdown and feature points available on the StreamShark website.
Monthly plans: for individuals and small businesses
Starting from $199/mo
Features:
1080p Cloud Transcoding
Real Time Stats
Instant Video Archives
Live Highlight Clips
DVR & Live Rewind
Multistream to Social
Chat
Privacy Controls
Sub Users
Enterprise Solutions: Custom plans for organizations, publishers and broadcasters
(Contact for pricing)
Includes all the monthly plans features, and:
Single Sign On (SSO) Support
Encoder Management
Enterprise Viewer Home Page
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Assisted Streaming
Encrypted Streams
360º 4K Streams
White Glove Stream Monitoring
24/7 Phone Support
JW had more player options, a better/more intuitive user interface, was altogether faster both in rendering the uploaded videos and in time to load on the web page. The integration with OpenX for pre-roll was faster and easier than with Brightcove, and lastly, they offered a …
JW Player is the most widely used internet video player out there, so it was an easy choice for us to trust JW with our video content and delivery. What impressed me most was their hunger to improve and satisfy our business needs. Many of their competitors weren't nearly as …
JW Player is competitive with VideoJS and MediaElements. Though we preferred VideoJS based on some features for its player attributes for years, we ultimately switched to JW Player due to its platform capabilities, functionality and recent investments the firm was making to …
I had been researching different virtual event s and streaming platforms and kept coming up against the same problems. They either couldn't be branded, the signup flow added friction and would have caused drop off, or quality of the stream was poor. It was also important that I …
We used IBM Cloud Video (previously called Ustream) for years. StreamShark is a better product in every sense. It is a more cost effective product. They have a support team who really cares about their clients success. And their product is ultimately more reliable than IBMs.
The workflow and encode/redistribution is much better in StreamShark. StreamShark is better suited as part of a live video event where the event is run by a production team. The Microsoft solution is better integrated with MS Teams, Yammer, etc. This does make the MS …
I think they do a great job of converting a video into various formats (file/size) that will accommodate a variety of devices. From computer to phone to tablet, it streams really nice with little or no latency. I would really, really like to see an easy way to add clickable text and links to the video (in a similar fashion to how YouTube does it).
StreamShark is well-suited for large one-to-many broadcasts, but there are more nimble videoconferencing solutions that can accommodate smaller attendance collaborative events, primarily due to the near real-time nature of videoconferencing solutions.
Just made the decision to renew given demonstrated improvements being made to the platform to expand compatibility for its player use on devices such as Apple TV, as well as improvements made recently to its JW Platform Dashboard
Reliability and compatibility on a majority of platforms. Would have received a 10 except recent versions of browsers such as Firefox are now defaulting against Flash components and thus prompting approval from users BEFORE loading which is a HUGE obstacle to an effective user experience thus creating concerns by end-users unnecessarily and risking that they will NOT accept the prompts, thus leaving unable to view video content hosted using the JW Player. Assurances by JW support suggest they will resolve this, so we'll see...
Support is reasonable. I from time to time have made suggestions on improvements that would be nice to see (like the ability to have a clickable link within the video - that is easy to create, without tons of coding) and it seems as though I never see it happen or get much response to "suggestions" to upgrade the software. The good news, other than a few things as I mentioned above, overall, I don't have many "technical issues" in the platform, which is a good thing. On occasion, I have seen some "issues" with the delivery of the video, but it has been pretty scarce. So it is dependable.
One of the primary features promoted by JW Platform is its SEO definition. However, there did not seem to be a way to integrate that data to our platform if selected thus only leaving the benefits of that data to be established on the individual video page hosted by JW Platform, which isn't useful in the end to the client value we are trying to deliver for our VideoproFile.net solution
JW Player is the most widely used internet video player out there, so it was an easy choice for us to trust JW with our video content and delivery. What impressed me most was their hunger to improve and satisfy our business needs. Many of their competitors weren't nearly as interested in our bottom line as they were in their own
We used IBM Cloud Video (previously called Ustream) for years. StreamShark is a better product in every sense. It is a more cost effective product. They have a support team who really cares about their clients success. And their product is ultimately more reliable than IBMs.