The true cost of a video player
Open source, flat, or per impression: what a player really costs
Every player vendor is cheaper on its own pricing page. This page does the opposite: it puts the three ways to pay for a video player next to each other, using each vendor's own published numbers, and shows where each one wins.
It is a guide rather than a pitch, because for a lot of projects the honest answer is that you should not be paying for a player at all.
The three ways to pay
An open-source player (hls.js, Shaka Player, Video.js) has no licence fee. You pay in engineering time: the integration, and then the upkeep of it as browsers, operating systems and DRM policies change.
A flat plan is a fixed monthly price, published up front. Bradmax plans run from EUR 99 to EUR 399 a month with no per-view charge; THEOplayer has been reported at around EUR 395 a month and Radiant Media Player starts at USD 150 a month. The bill is the same in a quiet month and in a record month.
Per-impression pricing charges per thousand player impressions, with the rate often multiplied by resolution and codec. Bitmovin publishes USD 1.50 per 1,000 player impressions with 10,000 included; JW Player sells usage tiers and its premium customers have averaged around USD 101,000 a year. You pay only for what you serve, and the bill follows your traffic.
What each model costs at 2,000,000 player impressions a month
| Cost model | Bradmax | Open source | Usage-based |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly licence | EUR 399 (top published plan) | EUR 0 | About USD 2,985 (1,990,000 billable at USD 1.50 per 1,000) |
| What the price includes | Player, ad insertion, multi-DRM, analytics and support, with no per-view charge | The player code and its community | Player impressions only |
| What it leaves out | High volume, white-label and custom SLA are quoted | Your engineering time to integrate and maintain it | Encoding, analytics and the resolution and codec multipliers on the base rate |
| Does the bill follow traffic? | No, the plan is flat | No, the cost is your team | Yes, every extra impression is billed |
Where the flat plan overtakes the per-impression rate
| Monthly volume | Bradmax (flat) | Per-impression |
|---|---|---|
| 50,000 player impressions | EUR 99 (entry plan) | About USD 60 (40,000 billable) |
| 250,000 player impressions | EUR 99 to EUR 399, depending on features | About USD 360 (240,000 billable) |
| 2,000,000 player impressions | EUR 399 (top published plan) | About USD 2,985 (1,990,000 billable) |
When each model is the right answer
Open source wins for web-only, unprotected, no ads
If your content plays in a browser without DRM, your monetization is not video ads, and a playback incident is an annoyance rather than a revenue event, an open-source player is proportionate. Do not buy a commercial player for this; the licence is not the saving, the decision not to maintain a bespoke stack is.
Per-impression wins at low or spiky volume
Below roughly 80,000 impressions a month, a per-impression rate costs less than the entry flat plan, and it needs no monthly commitment. If you would rather pay only for what you serve and can live with a bill that varies, this is the cheaper model and there is no shame in it.
A flat plan wins at predictable mid-to-high volume
Once you are past the crossover, the flat plan costs less, and it does not move when a clip goes viral. It also bundles what you would otherwise assemble: multi-DRM, TV and CTV coverage, ad insertion and a committed response time, all for one predictable number.
The cost that never appears in the table
The line most pricing comparisons leave out is the one that decides the deal: engineering time. Bitmovin's own developer research found that fully custom player builds are rare, around 6% of teams, precisely because the ongoing maintenance cost outweighs the licence.
A licence does not really buy you the code. The code is the cheap part. What you are buying is the maintenance of that code across browsers, operating systems, DRM policy changes and ad-tech changes, spread across every customer of the vendor instead of concentrated in your sprint.
That is the honest way to read the two tables above. Open source is genuinely the cheapest option when the integration is small and stable. Per-impression is genuinely cheaper when the volume is low. A flat plan wins when the volume is real and the requirements stop being just playback.
How this comparison is built
Every competitor figure is a public list price, named and dated in the sources below, and re-checked each quarter. We do not restate a competitor price as if it were ours to set, and we do not treat a base rate as a total.
The worked example uses 2,000,000 player impressions a month as a mid-market volume, and shows two lower volumes so the crossover is visible rather than asserted. The currency conversion is stated so you can redo the arithmetic with your own numbers.
The Bradmax side of the table is our own published pricing page, which lists flat plans from EUR 99 to EUR 399 a month with no per-view charge. We are not pretending the flat model is the cheapest for everyone; it is the cheapest once you need what it bundles.
Work the numbers, then check the detail
Frequently asked questions
Is an open-source player actually free?
The licence is free; the engineering time is not. For web-only playback of unprotected content with no ad requirement, an open-source player plus a small UI is the right answer and the maintenance is manageable. The cost appears when you add DRM, a second platform such as a Smart TV app, ad insertion at volume, or an SLA on playback incidents, because from then on your team owns the integration around the player.
When is per-impression pricing cheaper than a flat plan?
At low volume. On the published rates we use here, a per-impression player rate is cheaper than the entry flat plan until you pass roughly 80,000 player impressions a month. Above that the flat plan costs less and, more importantly, the bill stops moving when traffic does.
Why does a per-impression bill grow faster than the impression count?
Because the base rate is only the start. Vendors that price per impression commonly multiply the rate by resolution and codec, so a 4K HEVC stream can cost several times the entry figure per thousand impressions. The published base rate is the floor of the bill, not the bill.
Does Bradmax charge per view?
The published Bradmax plans are flat monthly prices with no per-view charge, from EUR 99 to EUR 399 a month. High volume, white-label and custom SLA deals are quoted, and the quote is where any usage term would be set, not on top of a published plan.
Which model should a mid-market streaming service pick?
If you need multi-DRM, TV and CTV coverage, ad insertion or a committed response time, a flat published plan is the predictable choice. If your volume is low or genuinely spiky and you would rather pay only for what you serve, per-impression is cheaper and we will say so.
Sources and method
- Bitmovin player pricing, USD 1.50 per 1,000 impressions Bitmovin public pricing page (player), with 10,000 impressions included
- Around 6% of teams run fully custom player builds Bitmovin Video Developer Report, 2025/26
- JW Player premium customers average around USD 101,000 a year Company filings and vendor pricing reporting, 2024-2026
- THEOplayer entry pricing reported at around EUR 395 a month Vendor pricing reporting, 2024-2026
- Radiant Media Player entry pricing from USD 150 a month Radiant Media Player public pricing page
- Bradmax plans from EUR 99 to EUR 399 a month, flat Bradmax pricing page (published plans carry no per-view charge)