Recently, three AI editing tools, Pireel, OpenChatCut, and ChatCut, have attracted much attention.
They are all solving the same problem:
Upload an oral video, let AI automatically complete the transcriptions, deletions, subtitles, packaging, and finally generate a video that can be released.
It sounds similar to the process, but after actual use, the gap is not in "whether the first version can be generated", but in the following details:
Only when the subtitles are accurate, whether the timeline can continue to be modified, whether the revocation is reliable, and whether the exported file is the current project determine whether it can enter the real workflow.
I used the same segment of oral footage to conduct four rounds of testing on three tools.
Give conclusions first.
final ranking
| tool | total score | core advantages |
|---|---|---|
| ChatCut | 90/100 | The entire process is the most complete and closest to commercial delivery tools |
| Pireel | 83/100 | The strongest content understanding and audio compression capabilities |
| OpenChatCut | 77/100 | Open source has the strongest expansion capabilities |
If your goal is:
- Quickly complete a deliverable video: Choose ChatCut
- Quickly refine oral content and make knowledge videos: Choose Pireel
- Build your own AI video workflow: Focus on OpenChatCut
test method
The test material is the same oral video of about 5 minutes:
- Resolution: 960×544
- Frame rate: 24fps
- binaural audio
The three tools use the same material and the same set of task requirements.
The test is divided into four rounds:
Round 1: Transcription and Oral Cleanup
Test:
- Automatically generate text manuscripts
- Remove mouth habits, repetition and meaningless pauses
- Keep the original intention
Round 2: Subtitles and picture adjustments
Test:
- Chinese subtitle generation
- Safe area adjustment
- partially enlarged
- Timeline editability
Round 3: Modification, Undo and Export
Test:
- Modify subtitle position and font size
- Shorten local amplification
- Repeal an amendment
- Export MP4 and SRT
Round 4: Autonomous generation and final film
Test:
- Continue production from existing projects
- Output 3 - 4 minutes of knowledge and oral video
- Add subtitles, chapters, key packaging
In addition, I checked:
- transcription
- subtitle track
- timeline structure
- export specification
- Consistency of engineering documents
Round 1: Transcription and Oral Cleanup
This round mainly depends on whether AI truly understands video content.
The material itself is relatively clean, so the key observations are:
- transliteration accuracy
- Whether the engineering connection is complete
- Will content be deleted by mistake
ChatCut: 23 points
ChatCut has the most complete native transcription process.
The manuscript can directly enter the subsequent editing process, and the final timeline is consistent with the film.
Shortcomings:
- There are still errors in some technical terms, such as fde
- The export specification has changed, from the original 960×544, 24fps to 1920×1080, 30fps
Pireel: Use local transcriptions to cover the bottom
Pireel has a strong understanding of the content, but this round of native transcriptions did not fully work.
After completing the test through the local script:
- No content was deleted by mistake
- You can re-register external manuscripts into the project
OpenChatCut: Use local transcriptions to cover the bottom
OpenChatCut also relies on local transcriptions.
Advantages:
- Provides word-level timestamp JSON
- The project is highly open
Question:
- Native ASR capabilities cannot be fully verified temporarily
Need to explain:
Pireel and OpenChatCut use local transcriptions in this round, so they cannot be directly equated to the product's own ASR capabilities.
Round 2: Subtitles and Picture Composition
This round of gaps is beginning to become apparent.
ChatCut: 23 points
Advantages:
- Subtitles and sentences are closest to daily video effects
- Zoom animation naturally
- Subsequent editing space is complete
Shortcomings:
- The subtitle size is too large
- Close to the person's mouth
Pireel: 23 points
Advantages:
- The subtitle style is the most restrained
- The main body of the picture remains clear
- Reasonable zoom control
Shortcomings:
- Subtitle accuracy affected by the first round of transcriptions
OpenChatCut: 22 points
Advantages:
- Subtitle position safe
- Zoom keyframes are truly editable structures
Shortcomings:
- The subtitles were broken into 245 short pages
- Switching frequency is too high
- There are still problems with identifying professional terms
Round 3: Modification, Undo and Export
After you really enter the workflow, the focus is not on generation, but on modification.
ChatCut: 22 points
Completed:
- Subtitles move up
- Enlarge the first subtitle
- local amplification recovery
It does not provide a common Undo interface, so recovery is ultimately achieved through precise reverse modification.
The result is correct, but the mechanism is not native revocation.
Pireel: 21 points
Advantages:
- Native Undo is the clearest
- Single revocation works best
Shortcomings:
- The modification of the specified subtitle size has not been completed
- SRT export is not supported
OpenChatCut: 23 points
Advantages:
- Subtitle modification completed
- Zoom restores accurately
- Export is best to maintain the original specifications
Shortcomings:
- Add extra tracks to modify subtitles individually
- The project structure is complex
- SRT generates 245 subtitles, which is costly to manually organize
Round 4: Who can make the real release?
This round handed the task directly to the AI.
Goals:
Starting from existing projects, create a 3 - 4-minute knowledge oral video.
ChatCut: 22 points
The overall performance is the best.
It joins:
- B-roll
- chapter animation
- tip bar
- background music
- Dynamic captioning
Finally:
- MP4 corresponds to project
- The material can still be edited
- Highest overall completion
Shortcomings:
- Packaging is mainly concentrated in the first half
- The second half is still traditional oral sowing
- Content compression capabilities are not as good as Pirel
Pireel: 19 points
Pireel's biggest advantage is content organization.
It compresses 304 seconds of material to approximately 251 seconds.
Performance:
- Focus on refining accurately
- The information card has a clear structure
- Business knowledge oral broadcast style unified
Shortcomings:
- Lack of B-roll
- No music or sound effects
- The viewing mainly relies on information cards
There are also delivery issues:
The pieces were finally preserved in the old project, and the original pieces were still retained in the fourth round of projects.
OpenChatCut: 12 points
OpenChatCut's advantage is still openness.
However, this round of delivery performance was insufficient:
Completed:
- Opening title card
- word-by-word subtitle
Shortcomings:
- Basically no B-roll
- no music
- No key animation
- No obvious visual packaging
More importantly:
The MP4 and SRT in the final directory are consistent with the ChatCut files and cannot be proved to be independently generated results.
Therefore, it cannot be regarded as effective delivery.
Who are the three tools suitable for?
ChatCut: For those who need delivery
The greatest value of ChatCut is not the "first generation", but the complete workflow.
It supports:
- multi-track editing
- XML
- Motion Graphics
- Continuous modification
If video is needed:
- Review to customers
- teamwork
- Multiple rework
ChatCut is more reliable.
Disadvantages:
- closed source
- Agent operations consume Credits
- Cloud processing needs to consider material privacy
Pireel: For people who make content quickly
Pireel is more like a content understanding tool.
It excels at:
- Find the key points
- compressed expression
- Generating information cards
Suitable for:
- Knowledge dissemination
- product introduction
- POV videos
But it is not complete post-stage software.
Complex timelines, multi-track engineering, and professional exchange capabilities are not advantages.
OpenChatCut: Suitable for developers and experimental users
OpenChatCut is the most open product of the three.
Advantages:
- open source
- BYOK
- MCP
- plug-in extension
- local workflow
Suitable for:
- Build your own AI video system
- Research Video Agents
- Deep customization process
But currently:
- High configuration costs
- Need to address model and service issues
- Stable delivery capabilities are still insufficient
final conclusion
The biggest finding of this test is:
What AI editing really opens up the gap is not the generation of the first version of the video, but the second half of the process.
What really affects efficiency is:
- Can the subtitles be modified separately?
- Is revocation reliable?
- Whether the timeline continues to be editable
- Are MP4, SRT and Engineering consistent
ChatCut wins in its complete delivery capabilities.
Pireel wins in content understanding and compression efficiency.
OpenChatCut wins on openness and future potential.
If you just look at the first generation, all three tools will be amazing.
But after really entering the production process, there were still a few issues that ultimately decided to experience:
Whether it can be changed, whether it can be exported, whether the file is correct, and whether it can continue to be done next time.