Miravela vs Flora: AI image and video for agencies

Flora and Miravela both put many AI image and video models under one subscription, but they organise the work differently. Flora is a collaborative node-based canvas where a team explores, branches and chains models, billed per seat against a shared dollar budget. Miravela is a production pipeline that runs from the brief to client approval and Drive delivery, billed in euro credits. Choose Flora if open-ended exploration and custom workflows are your bottleneck. Choose Miravela if briefs, client review and delivery are.

What each tool is

FLORA presents itself as an AI-powered canvas for designers, brand teams and agencies, with 50+ models in one workspace. Its enterprise page cites 170+ models across text, image, video and audio, so the model count depends on which Flora page you read. Flora does not build its own models; it offers an infinite canvas that integrates existing ones. At launch it focused on visual design agencies.

Miravela is an AI creative production platform for brand teams and agencies, built in Paris and in beta since September 2026. It starts with the brief: you paste an email, a voice note or a deck, and the built-in agent turns it into a structured brief, proposes concepts and writes the prompts. It then picks a model for each job from 12 hand-picked image and video models, including Nano Banana 2, GPT Image 2, Flux Pro, Veo 3.1, Kling and Seedance. It runs them at the model's maximum quality on every plan. Miravela was built by the team behind Mira Studio, a Paris creative studio, for its own production work.

Side-by-side comparison

	Flora	Miravela
Core idea	A collaborative visual canvas for images, video and audio with many models, reusable techniques and an assistant called FAUNA (source)	Brief-to-delivery pipeline: brief parsing, agent, generation, selection, client approval, Drive delivery
Models	50+ on the homepage (source); 170+ on the enterprise page	12 hand-picked image and video models, chosen per job
Pricing model	Per seat, with each seat's price doubling as a shared dollar usage budget; Free, Starter, Pro and Max tiers plus custom Enterprise (source)	Credits in euros, no per-model surcharge: Studio €199/month, Signature €490/month, Enterprise €1,790/month, excl. VAT (pricing)
Reusable workflows	Winning workflows saved as Techniques, run on-canvas, as an app, or via API or MCP (source)	Brand kits applied automatically; custom agents from the Signature plan
Client review	Canvas can be shared for collaborative work with clients (source)	Private client portals; comments and approvals return inside the platform
Data and security	SOC 2 certification stated; what you make never trains a model (source)	Data hosted in the EU (Paris); workspaces isolated; no training on client content; exportable prompt history
Maturity	Public launch in February 2025 (source)	In beta since September 2026

How Flora's pricing works

Flora's usage is metered in dollars at published model rates. Any generation from a model counts as usage, but FAUNA messages never count against your budget. Usage History shows the exact dollar cost per generation, per project and per member, which is useful for client billing. Paid tiers start at $18 per seat per month, and annual billing lowers each self-serve tier by 20%. Flora lists these prices in US dollars. See Flora's pricing docs for the current terms.

The catch is video. A Wireflow buyer's guide (written by a Flora competitor, so confirm prices yourself) notes that image work rarely strains a Flora budget, while video work decides which plan you need. There is no one-off top-up; once the monthly budget is used, the workspace upgrades or turns on on-demand spending. Budget by workload, not by headcount.

Miravela's model is different. You buy monthly credits in euros with no per-model surcharge, and prepaid packs do not expire while the subscription runs. Agencies set credit caps per member and one folder per brand. The trade-off is that you pay for credits rather than getting Flora's pass-through of published model rates.

What the generation data shows

These are Miravela platform data from its own database over the last 90 days, aggregated, with no client named. Of 8,544 generations started, 8,079 completed. 7,307 were images and 1,237 were videos.

Speed differs a lot by model. GPT Image 2, the most-used model, ran 3,074 generations with a 95.9% completion rate and a median time of 95 seconds. Nano Banana 2 had a median of 26 seconds, but a lower completion rate of 89.5%. Seedance 2.0 video had a median of 312 seconds and an 88.6% completion rate.

For an agency, this means stills come back in seconds to a couple of minutes, so you can iterate live with a client. Video takes minutes per attempt, and roughly one in nine video attempts did not complete. Plan video rounds around that, whichever tool you use. The same logic applies to Flora's metered video, where retries cost real budget.

Client approval and delivery

This is where the two products differ most. Flora is strongest during exploration. An independent review calls it strongest during visual ideation, reference gathering, model comparison and campaign-direction development (Media.io review). Flora also connects with your cloud storage, according to its enterprise page.

Miravela is built around what happens after the visuals exist. You sort work by client and collection, build a shared selection, and send it through a private portal. The marketing lead or client reviews, comments and approves, and the comments come back inside the platform rather than in email threads. Every deliverable is copied automatically to the subscriber's own Google Drive. The prompt history of each visual is kept and exportable, which is the document a brand needs to show its creative input.

Where Flora is the better choice

• You want a node-based canvas with branching, comparison and custom workflows, and your team is comfortable wiring them.
• You need API or MCP access. Paid Flora plans include API and MCP access.
• You want the widest model catalogue, with Flora stating 50+ or 170+ models against Miravela's 12.
• You need a vendor that is past beta and has stated SOC 2 compliance.
• Your clients review inside your own tools, and you only need the canvas for ideation.

Where Miravela fits

• Your work arrives as emails, voice notes and decks, and you want it turned into a brief and prompts.
• You produce for luxury, fashion, beauty or hospitality brands and want the brand kit applied automatically.
• You run many client accounts and want folders per brand, roles and credit caps.
• Clients must approve inside a private portal, with delivery to your own Google Drive.
• You want euro billing, EU data hosting (Paris) and exportable prompt history. The models themselves run at their providers (Google, OpenAI, ByteDance, Kuaishou and others), not in Europe.

How to choose

1. Name your bottleneck: exploring ideas, or moving approved work to delivery.
2. Count your video share. Metered video drives Flora's cost; on Miravela it draws on your credits.
3. Decide who reviews. Internal creatives on a canvas point to Flora; external clients in a portal point to Miravela.
4. Check currency and billing. Per-seat USD with a shared pool, or euro credits with member caps.
5. Check data requirements. Ask both vendors where data is hosted and how it is isolated.
6. Weigh maturity. Miravela is in beta; Flora has been public since 2025.
7. Run one real brief through each tool before you commit.

Miravela's own comparison pages and agency page list details. Many teams may use both: a canvas to explore, a pipeline to deliver.