HEVCut vs. Competitors: Which App Offers Better Space Saving?
Searching "video compressor" on the App Store returns dozens of apps with similar descriptions and screenshots. They all promise to "reduce video size" or "compress videos easily." But the actual compression performance, speed, quality preservation, and user experience vary enormously.
This comparison tests HEVCut against the most popular alternatives across the metrics that matter most: how much space you actually save, how fast it processes, whether metadata survives, and what the experience feels like in daily use.
The Competition Landscape
Most iPhone video compression apps fall into three tiers:
Tier 1 — HEVC-native with hardware encoding: Apps that use Apple's hardware HEVC encoder for fast, efficient compression. This tier produces the best results.
Tier 2 — HEVC-capable with software encoding: Apps that support HEVC output but use slower software encoding. Better results than H.264-only apps, but significantly slower and harder on battery.
Tier 3 — H.264-only with quality sliders: Apps that keep videos in H.264 and reduce file size by lowering bitrate or resolution. Limited savings, often visible quality loss.
HEVCut operates in Tier 1. Most free compression apps operate in Tier 3.
Comparison Area 1: Compression Efficiency
The most important metric—how much smaller are the output files?
Test: 1-minute 4K 30fps video, originally in H.264 (350 MB)
| App Category | Output Codec | Typical Output Size | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| HEVCut (Balanced) | HEVC | ~120-150 MB | 57-66% |
| Tier 2 HEVC apps | HEVC | ~130-170 MB | 51-63% |
| Tier 3 H.264 apps (high quality) | H.264 | ~220-280 MB | 20-37% |
| Tier 3 H.264 apps (medium quality) | H.264 | ~140-180 MB | 49-60%* |
*At medium quality in H.264, file sizes can match HEVC, but with visible quality degradation—especially in motion scenes and gradients.
The codec advantage is decisive: HEVC-based tools consistently deliver 50-65% savings while maintaining quality, whereas H.264-only tools must sacrifice quality to achieve similar file sizes.
H.264-Only Compressors
- •Can only reduce bitrate within H.264
- •Must sacrifice quality for aggressive savings
- •Medium quality shows visible artifacts
- •Limited by the codec's compression ceiling
- •No codec upgrade benefit
HEVC Compressors (HEVCut)
- •Codec upgrade provides ~50% savings baseline
- •Bitrate optimization adds 10-20% more
- •Quality maintained at Balanced settings
- •Hardware acceleration for speed
- •Fundamentally more efficient algorithm
Comparison Area 2: Processing Speed
Speed determines whether compression is practical for batch processing.
Test: 10-minute 4K 30fps video (~1.7 GB HEVC)
| App Type | Encoding Method | Processing Time | Battery Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| HEVCut | Hardware HEVC | ~5 minutes | Minimal |
| Tier 2 (software HEVC) | Software HEVC | ~25-40 minutes | Heavy |
| Tier 3 (H.264) | Software H.264 | ~10-15 minutes | Moderate |
Hardware encoding is 5-8x faster than software encoding. For a library of 100 videos, this is the difference between a 2-hour overnight process and a multi-day ordeal.
Comparison Area 3: Metadata Preservation
Metadata (dates, locations, camera info, HDR data) is critical for library organization. This is where many competitors fail silently.
| Metadata | HEVCut | Most Competitors |
|---|---|---|
| Recording date | Preserved | Often reset to export date |
| GPS location | Preserved | Often stripped |
| Camera info | Preserved | Often stripped |
| Dolby Vision HDR | Preserved | Usually lost |
| Cinematic Mode depth | Preserved | Usually lost |
| Album placement | Maintained | Lost (new file) |
| Favorites/keywords | Preserved | Lost |
Metadata Loss Is the Hidden Gotcha
Many users don't discover metadata loss until weeks later, when they search for "videos from vacation" and half their compressed videos don't appear because the location was stripped. This isn't recoverable—once metadata is gone, it's permanent. Always verify metadata on a test file before batch processing.
Comparison Area 4: Batch Processing and Library Integration
| Feature | HEVCut | Typical Competitors |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-select | Unlimited | 1-10 videos |
| Background processing | Yes | Rarely |
| Library scanning | Per-video savings estimates | Not available |
| Photos integration | Direct replacement in library | Exports to camera roll |
| Queue management | Persistent queue | Usually none |
Most competitor apps are designed for one-video-at-a-time workflows. They work for sharing a single video but are impractical for managing a library of hundreds of items.
Comparison Area 5: Ad Experience and Pricing
| App | Pricing | Ad Experience |
|---|---|---|
| HEVCut | Subscription (no ads) | Zero ads |
| Free compressors (Tier 3) | Free + ads | Full-screen video ads between operations |
| Freemium compressors | Free tier + paid unlock | Ads on free tier, feature gates |
Free compression apps monetize through ads. The ad frequency varies, but common patterns include:
- Full-screen video ad after every compression
- Banner ads covering interface elements
- "Watch ad to unlock HD output" gates
- Interstitial ads when selecting videos
The cumulative time spent watching ads can exceed the actual compression time, especially during batch operations.
Pro Tip
Calculate the true cost of "free" compressor apps. If you watch a 30-second ad per video and need to compress 100 videos, that's 50 minutes of ads. A subscription to an ad-free tool pays for itself in time savings on the first batch.
When Competitors Are Fine
Not every scenario requires a full-featured compression tool:
- One-off sharing: Need to shrink a single video to text to someone? A free app works fine.
- Quick resize: Need to reduce resolution for a specific upload? Basic tools handle this.
- Format conversion: Need to convert a video to a specific container format? Any converter works.
For these occasional, single-video tasks, the downsides of free apps (ads, slower processing, metadata loss) are tolerable.
When HEVCut Wins
- Library management: Compressing 50+ videos with metadata preservation
- Storage recovery: Maximizing space savings across your entire media collection
- Ongoing maintenance: Monthly compression of new H.264 arrivals
- iCloud optimization: Reducing both local and cloud storage costs
- Quality-critical content: Preserving HDR, Cinematic Mode, and other advanced formats
FAQ
Is it worth paying for a compression app?
If you have more than 10 GB of compressible video, yes. The storage savings (and potential iCloud tier reduction) typically exceed the app cost within the first month. If you only compress a video once or twice a year, a free app is sufficient.
Can free apps achieve the same compression as HEVCut?
Some free apps support HEVC encoding and can achieve similar file sizes. But they typically lack metadata preservation, batch processing, and library integration. The compression output might be comparable; the workflow and safety features are not.
Why don't all compression apps use hardware HEVC encoding?
It requires specific implementation with Apple's VideoToolbox framework. Many apps use cross-platform libraries (like FFmpeg) that default to software encoding. Building a native hardware-accelerated encoder requires more development investment.
What's the most common problem with competitor apps?
Metadata loss. It's silent, irreversible, and most users don't notice until it's too late. The second most common issue is ads that make batch processing impractical.
Comparison Summary
- HEVC hardware encoding delivers 50-65% savings vs 20-35% for H.264-only tools at equivalent quality
- Hardware encoding is 5-8x faster than software encoding used by most competitors
- Metadata preservation (dates, locations, HDR) is the most critical differentiator
- Batch processing and library integration make HEVCut practical for full library management
- Free apps work for occasional single-video tasks but are impractical for library-scale compression
- The subscription cost is typically offset by iCloud tier savings within the first month