Two crossing points with no figure, for two reasons
Neither entry yields a figure for its crossing point. On one the marking line is attached to the paid plans as a class; on the other a plan is named and the prices are not present as text on the page. As of 2026-09-22.
| On this question | Runway | Fliki |
|---|---|---|
| What the line is attached to | The paid plans, as a class | The paid plans, in a comparison |
| Why no figure | No plan is named | The prices are not text on the page |
| The free answer | Read from an omission | Stated in a sentence |
| Second route to the models | API pricing, which omits the line | None documented |
| File contents | Nothing published | Nothing published |
Inclusion rule. One row per question on which these two entries can be compared from their own published pages. Questions neither vendor addresses are left out rather than filled with a dash. Order. Fixed order: the mechanism first, then who holds it, then what it leaves behind.
| Generator | Paid tier | Document read |
|---|---|---|
| Fliki | No watermark on the paid plans | pricing page |
| Runway | Watermark-free on paid plans | pricing page |
Inclusion rule. The two entries on this page, with the value each one's own pages support in the column they diverge on. Order. Alphabetical by generator name.
1Two kinds of unquotable
One vendor attaches watermark-free output to its paid plans without naming which, so there is no tier to price. The other names the boundary clearly enough and publishes its plan prices in a form that is not readable as text, so a plan exists and a figure cannot be cited.
Both cells end up without a number and the reasons are not interchangeable. The first is an editorial choice about how specific to be; the second is a rendering decision that happens to make a commercial fact invisible to anything reading the document rather than looking at it.
2Why a price that is not text is a finding
A figure rendered as an image, or assembled after a page loads, is invisible to this register and to every answer engine summarising the same page. A crossing point can exist commercially and be uncitable, which is a different situation from a vendor declining to name one.
The rule here is that a value has to be readable on the vendor's own page to be recorded. Reading a number off a screenshot would put something in a cell that no later reader could check the same way, which is the kind of unverifiable precision this site exists to avoid.
3The free cells go the other way
On the entry with no named plan the free answer is an omission: the marking line appears against the paid columns and not the free one. On the entry with unreadable prices the free plan states outright that it includes the vendor's watermark, which is the sturdiest evidence class on this site.
So the vendor that is clearer about its free tier is the one that is unreadable about its money, and the vendor that is vaguer about its plans publishes its prices plainly. Averaging those into a judgement about transparency would lose both, which is why they sit in separate rows.
4Sources
- Paid tierWatermark-free output is listed on the paid planslisted as a plan feature
- Paid tier priceNot documented on the vendor's public pages (as of 2026-09-22)the plan prices are not present as text on the page
Both values above are read from the vendor pages linked in the rows: runway.com and fliki.ai, on 2026-09-22. Each entry has its own page, Runway and Fliki, and the rule for the column they diverge on is on the paid tier column page. Other pairs: a reference and a card, trial output, two shapes.