A little too pricey for the selection of assets offered
July 12, 2022

A little too pricey for the selection of assets offered

Cristian Muresan | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 7 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with Adobe Stock

I have used Adobe Stock intermittently for a various projects and used their search feature to locate photos for ongoing projects as well. Overall, the cost to image quality to image variety didn't really pan out for me. Between the free alternatives that are out there (Pexels, Unsplash, Pixabay), and more affordable options like 123RF, Adobe Stock comes out as a worse candidate than premium stock photography libraries like iStock or Shutterstock, but more expensive than cheaper alternatives without offering a good enough selection.
  • Decent selection of imagery available.
  • Good UI with fast page loading and good filtering options
  • Excellent free trial available
  • Price - it's overpriced considering the selection and quality of photos it offers
  • Integrate with Adobe software without the need to go on the web for images. If this feature exists, it's not intuitive or promoted enough for users to notice.
  • Subscription through existing Adobe account
  • I felt like the subscription of $29.99/month for 3 assets was too expensive to justify the quality of the library that is available to users. Overall, in terms of ROI it didn't quite work out to subscribe long term.
Pexels offers a free alternative to Adobe Stock, albeit their selection is quite limited and doesn't include vectors. iStock and Shutterstock on the other hand have comparable prices to Adobe Stock, but their selection is far superior. The quality of the vectors, the variety of Adobe Stock just doesn't stack up to their more premium competitors.

Do you think Adobe Stock delivers good value for the price?


Are you happy with Adobe Stock's feature set?


Did Adobe Stock live up to sales and marketing promises?


Did implementation of Adobe Stock go as expected?


Would you buy Adobe Stock again?


It works well for users looking to find imagery within a decent selection. However, the quality of the imagery feels outdated at times and searches feel peppered with low quality cliche photos that are best suited in the 2000s or the 2010s. For this purpose, you'd be better off with a discount stock photography library where you can save on a subscription. If you're looking for a selection of modern, high quality and up-to-date photo selection, competitors like iStock will be a much better fit.