A regional logistics platform needs ninety seconds to walk distribution partners across four countries through a new tracking flow, and a medical device manufacturer needs the same length to show a mechanism no camera can reach inside the body. A B2B software company needs it to turn a features list into something a prospect actually finishes watching. All three have landed on the same format, the explainer video, and all three are about to make a commissioning decision with almost no reliable pricing information in front of them.
This page is that pricing information, written from the studio's side of the quote. It covers what actually moves the number on an explainer video, how the style you pick changes both price and timeline, why the right length is usually shorter than the brief first assumes, and what a studio needs from you before it can quote accurately. If an explainer is already the right call and the only thing left is commissioning one well, this should get you to a defensible internal number and a clear next step.
An explainer video is built, not filmed, so its price follows finished duration and complexity rather than shoot days, and it usually lands well under a comparable live-action corporate film of the same length. What moves the number most is the animation style chosen, how much the script changes after the first draft, whether a professional voiceover and multiple language tracks are needed, and how many revision rounds the brief allows. Style also shapes how the timeline behaves. A flat 2D piece moves quickly once the storyboard locks; a 3D or isometric build takes longer to start and less time to change once it exists. The shortest cut that still carries one clear message usually beats the longest one a stakeholder group can agree on. Bring a clear objective and a deadline to the first call, and a studio can quote the job accurately without a second meeting.
What an explainer video is built to do
An explainer video takes a specific product or process and makes it understood in under two minutes, almost always through animation rather than a live-action shoot. That single job is what separates it from a corporate video or a brand film.
A sibling guide on corporate video, explainer video and brand film compared walks through that distinction in full. The short version here is that a corporate video carries an organisation's story and a brand film carries its emotional register, while an explainer exists to make one specific thing clear.
Dustin Hill Productions runs animation, 3D and VFX in-house, and most of what makes an explainer good happens in that build stage, after the script locks and before a single frame renders. An introduction to explainer videos covers where the format typically earns its place, from a product page to a sales deck.
What actually drives the cost of an explainer video
Six things move the number, and they do not carry equal weight. The script matters most, because every rewrite after the first draft touches the storyboard and the animation timeline behind it.
The storyboard translates that script into frames, and a storyboard with forty distinct scenes costs more to animate than one with twelve, regardless of how long the finished video runs. Animation style comes next: a flat two dimensional piece is quicker to build than an isometric or three dimensional one, because every additional dimension adds render time on top of design time.
Voiceover is the fourth driver, and it scales with both quality and language count, since one professional voice track costs less than the same script recorded for a regional rollout in three languages. Length is the fifth, and it is usually the smallest lever of the six, since a script that runs twice as long does not double the number of scenes that need building.
Revisions are the sixth, and the real driver is not the number of rounds but how late in the process a change lands. A colour change after storyboard approval costs little. A structural change after the animation is mostly built does not, which is exactly the trap a regional logistics platform can fall into when country teams each want a say after the first cut is already animated.
How much does an explainer video actually cost?
Less than most buyers assume, and less than a live-action corporate film of the same length, because an explainer is priced by finished duration and build complexity rather than by shoot days. There is no crew day rate to cover and no location to book, which removes two of the largest line items in a live-action budget outright. What replaces those costs is design and animation time, which moves in the opposite direction: a highly detailed ninety second piece can cost more than a simple three minute one, because scene count and render complexity matter more than the clock.
For an actual sense of where the numbers land, the full breakdown of what corporate video costs in Singapore sets out the bands a comparable live-action film falls into, including the finding that fully animated pieces are typically priced per finished minute rather than per shoot day. Use that as the outside reference point, then treat this page as the anatomy of what moves an explainer specifically inside that logic.
How the style you choose changes price and timeline
Style decides more than how the finished video looks. It decides which of the six cost drivers above dominates, and it decides whether the timeline is front loaded or back loaded. The different styles of explainer video, and which one suits you sets out five common approaches in full. Here is what each one does to price and schedule specifically.
A medical device manufacturer showing how a valve moves inside a catheter has no live-action option at all, so the choice narrows to which animated style can carry that level of detail. The table below is the shorthand version of that decision.
| Style | What drives the price | How the timeline behaves | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whiteboard or hand drawn | Illustration time and frame count | Steady once the script locks | A concept that benefits from a human touch |
| Flat 2D animation | Scene and character count, not runtime | Predictable once the storyboard is approved | Product walkthroughs and process explainers |
| Motion graphics | Number of visual builds and data complexity | Fast to iterate once the design system is set | Explaining a workflow or a set of numbers |
| 3D or isometric animation | Model build time and render complexity | Slower to start, faster to change once built | A mechanism or facility no camera can reach |
| Live action explainer | Locations, cast and shoot days | Shoot day bound, rigid once locked | A message that needs a real person on screen |
The line between motion graphics, 3D animation and full VFX work gets blurred in casual conversation, and it is worth being precise about it before a quote comes back priced for the wrong one. What actually separates motion graphics, 3D animation and VFX draws that line clearly. For anything that leans on a real person or a real location inside the explainer itself, that work usually sits with our video production team rather than the animation studio, and it is worth saying so in the brief.
Why the right length is usually shorter than expected
Most stakeholder groups start a brief assuming two to three minutes, because that used to be the safe answer. It rarely is anymore. The case for a 30 second explainer video sets out why: attention on a phone screen collapses fast, and a video has to earn every additional second rather than assume it. What actually makes a short-form hook work in 2026 goes further and argues the first three seconds carry more weight than the rest of the script combined.
A B2B software company launching a new module usually needs two cuts rather than one, a forty five second version for a landing page and a paid social placement, and a longer two minute version for a sales call or an onboarding email where the viewer has already chosen to pay attention. The short cut almost always gets commissioned first, and it is usually the one that gets watched to the end.
What a studio needs from you to quote accurately
A studio can quote fast and quote accurately when a brief answers four questions before the first call: what the video has to make someone understand, who is watching it and where, roughly how long the finished piece should run, and what already exists that the studio does not have to build from nothing, such as a brand system or existing 3D assets.
This is also where choosing the right partner matters more than people expect going in. What to look for when hiring an explainer video company and why it is worth hiring a company rather than assembling this in-house both cover that decision from the buyer's side. Our own animation team usually starts a quote from those same four questions, which is why a short first call is often enough to return a number that holds.
What a good explainer video has to do to earn its budget
A well priced explainer that nobody finishes watching has still failed. What actually makes an explainer video great and how a high-converting explainer gets built land on the same core requirement from different angles: one message, stated plainly enough that a viewer could repeat it back thirty seconds after the video ends.
The most common way a good budget gets wasted is a script trying to do too many jobs at once, when the brief only needed one message stated plainly. The issues that quietly sink an otherwise good explainer video catalogues where that shows up in practice, from a message that assumes too much prior knowledge to a video that never states what the viewer should do next.
A regional rollout raises the bar further, because the same explainer now has to work for a market that has never heard of the product and a market that already has a competitor's version of it. That is less a budget problem than a script problem, and it is the one place where spending more on the writing stage before anything gets storyboarded saves the most further down the line.
Last reviewed: 25 August 2026.
The bands and the drivers above are enough to get an internal budget to a defensible number. What decides whether the finished video actually works is the script, and that is easier to shape in a real conversation than to guess at alone.
If an explainer is the right next move for a regional logistics platform, a medical device launch, a software rollout or something else entirely, the fastest way to a number that holds is to talk it through. Start a Conversation and bring whatever script or brief exists so far, even if it is still rough. No pressure, just a clear look at what's possible.
If the case for the format itself is still open on your side, what a brand loses by not having an explainer at all makes that argument before any of the budgeting above becomes relevant.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does it take to produce an explainer video?
Usually shorter than a comparable live-action production end to end, since there is no location scouting or crew scheduling to coordinate. Script and storyboard approval typically take as long as the animation itself, so the fastest way to shorten the timeline is a faster yes on the script, not a faster animator. A 3D or isometric style adds time at the front of that schedule, before anything can be animated, rather than at the back.
What is the difference between an explainer video and a corporate video?
A corporate video communicates who an organisation is, usually for an audience that already has some reason to care. An explainer video communicates one specific thing, most often a product or a process, to an audience that may know nothing about it yet, and it almost always uses animation to do it. How to choose between a corporate video and an explainer video walks through the decision in more depth.
Does an explainer video need a professional voiceover?
Not always, but most that work commercially have one. A clear, well recorded voice carries pacing and emphasis that on-screen text cannot, especially in a short cut where there is no time to also read anything. Budget for it as a separate line, particularly if the same script needs to run in more than one language for a regional audience.
How many revision rounds should I expect?
Enough to fix what the storyboard could not predict, and every studio should quote a specific number up front so both sides know where the free rounds end. The rounds matter less than the timing: feedback gathered from every stakeholder before the first cut is reviewed is far cheaper than feedback that arrives in separate waves after it.
Can an explainer video handle a technical or regulated product?
That is usually where an explainer earns its budget fastest, because animation can show a mechanism or a compliance step that no camera or product photo can capture cleanly. The harder part is usually accessibility and localisation rather than the science itself, since a regulated product often needs the same explainer approved for more than one market. Start a Conversation early on a regulated brief, since legal and medical review usually takes longer than the animation does.
