Wrike Video Proofing vs a Dedicated Client Review Link
Wrike has real video proofing and a Premiere extension, so the comparison comes down to what the client has to do to leave a note and how you pay for it. Here is how I split the work.
"Client is on Wrike and their marketing lead wants us to drop every cut into their Wrike for proofing instead of sending our usual review link, are we fine with that or do we push back?" That was the exact message my project manager sent me, and to be very honest my first instinct was to type back sure, right, because the client pays the invoice and their whole team already lives inside Wrike.
Then I sat with it for a bit. Wrike video proofing is a real feature with markup and an extension for Premiere, right, so the useful version of my PM's question was about who has to log in where and how my editors pull the notes back into the timeline, and then what the bill looks like once most reviewers sit outside the client's own team.
So this is my fair comparison from inside an agency that runs client review every single day, because at the end of the day most Wrike teams are happy with their project tool and only need to decide which tool the client actually touches.
What Wrike video proofing includes
I'll keep Wrike's side to what Wrike itself documents, right, because I don't run Wrike inside my agency and I'd rather you trust their help center than my memory of somebody else's demo. According to Wrike's help pages, video proofing comes with a Proofing & Approval add-on on top of the core work management subscription, so ask your Wrike admin whether your workspace has it before anybody promises a client proofing inside Wrike.
Wrike also announced advanced markup and an extension for Adobe Premiere in the same release, so Wrike video annotation is a genuine part of the product and reviewers can mark up the picture itself instead of typing vague notes into a task.
Two smaller details matter more than they look. Files attached from cloud storage apps are not supported for proofing, so if your editors normally drop a Google Drive, Dropbox or OneDrive link into a task, you'll be uploading the actual export instead, which for long cuts and heavy masters adds real time every round. And a community request to add Vimeo as a proofing source is marked as not planned, so Vimeo-hosted review cuts mean uploading twice, which ties into what I wrote about Vimeo private links for client review.
For an internal team this is a really really solid setup, because the proof sits right beside the task and your reviewers have Wrike open all day anyway, so nobody has to form a new habit just to leave a note.
How I'd test Wrike video proofing on one real cut
Before you decide anything, push one real export from a live project through it, not a ten second test clip. For instance, with a 60 second spot heading into its first client round, this is the order I'd go in:
- Ask your admin to confirm the Proofing & Approval add-on is active in your workspace.
- Upload the actual export rather than attaching a Drive or Dropbox link, since attached cloud files won't proof.
- Send the proof to someone outside your company, a friend on a personal email works, and write down every step they take before they can comment.
- Have them leave one frame note and one markup from their phone, then check where each one lands for your editor.
- Upload a second version and see how clearly the changes and the old notes show up for someone who doesn't edit for a living.
Step three is the one I'd watch hardest, right, because it tells you whether Wrike suits your client side or only your internal side.
Wrike documents video proofing as part of its Proofing and Approval add on, so confirm your workspace has it and test an uploaded file first.
Wrike proofing for internal teams versus outside clients
This is basically where the whole decision lives for an agency, right, because internal reviewers and outside clients behave in completely different ways. Your own designers and brand managers already have Wrike accounts and get notifications where they expect them, so for them Wrike proofing and approval is the shortest path from cut to note.
Outside clients are a different animal, and I say that with a lot of love. In my agency the approver is often a founder or a head of marketing who opens the link on a phone between two calls, and every extra screen before the comment box makes it more likely they reply on WhatsApp with "the bit near the end feels slow", which is the note I dread most. How Wrike treats reviewers outside your account depends on how your workspace is set up, which is exactly why step three of that test matters.
On the PlayPause side, the client opens one link in a browser with no account and no install, and their comment sticks to the exact frame they paused on. If the note covers a whole section they drag a range comment across it, and if a logo sits too close to the edge they draw on the frame and circle it. Links can be password protected and revoked instantly, which I covered in stopping clients sharing review links, and for approvers who live on their phones there's my guide on getting precise notes from a phone.
There's also who-watched analytics, so you see who opened the link, when and from which city, which feels small until you're chasing an approval and can see the CEO watched the cut twice yesterday and simply hasn't replied.
sits beside the task your own team already works in all day, so internal notes stay close to the plan
opens in any browser with no account and no install, so outside approvers leave notes on the exact frame
Premiere Pro workflows in both tools
Both tools take Premiere seriously, which I really appreciate, because Adobe Premiere Pro is where most of my agency's edits actually happen. Wrike shipped its Premiere extension in the same announcement as video proofing, but I haven't run the Wrike Premiere extension on a real client job, so I won't pretend to grade it, and the fair move is to push a real cut through it yourself.
The PlayPause Premiere Pro panel is the part of our product I lean on hardest every week, to be very honest. The client's comments show up inside Premiere, you click one and the playhead jumps straight to that frame, you upload the next cut right from the timeline, and you pair the panel to your workspace with a code. For how timecode lines up, I wrote about syncing timestamped comments to Premiere, and there's a straight comparison of Premiere markers versus a review tool.
One honest caveat for mixed teams, right, Premiere Pro is the only editor with a native PlayPause panel, so for editors cutting in DaVinci Resolve or Final Cut Pro the loop is export, upload, review, then work through the notes inside the editor, which still beats notes buried in an email thread.
Version handling and side by side compare
Versions are where client review quietly falls apart, mine included in the early days, right, because the client sits on the first cut for two days, then sends notes on it after you've uploaded the second one, and now your editor is fixing things that were fixed yesterday. That's the mess I described in feedback on a replaced cut, and the fix is mostly structural.
In PlayPause, new versions stack on the same card as MV1, MV2, MV3 and so on, so a deliverable's whole history lives in one place and each comment stays with the version it was left on. From Agency up, side-by-side version compare puts MV2 and MV3 next to each other on one screen, and trust me on any level, nothing ends a "did you even change anything" email faster.
Agency also has guest version upload. A lot of our work involves freelancers hired directly by the client, like a colourist or a motion designer, and guest upload lets them add a version to the stack without creating an account, while PlayPause collects their name and email. I don't know Wrike's revision view well enough to grade it, so push three versions of the same rough cut through both tools and see which one makes the changes obvious to someone who isn't an editor, you see what I mean here.
Every old note should stay pinned to the version it was written on, so nobody fixes yesterday's cut twice.
Pricing models: work management add on versus flat workspace
Here the two tools are built on different ideas, right. Wrike is a work management platform first with proofing as an add-on, so what you pay depends on your Wrike plan, the Wrike proofing add on and how Wrike counts the people using it, and since those numbers move, read them on Wrike's own pricing page. The one question I'd put to your Wrike rep is what it costs for every client reviewer and freelancer to proof video, and whether that grows with each new person.
PlayPause prices flat per workspace instead of per person, so the invoice doesn't move when a new producer joins, as long as you stay inside the plan's member limit. The plan I'd point an agency at is Agency, which is $19 a month for the whole workspace with room for 50 members, and because clients comment through the link without an account, they never take up any of those 50. If you ever downgrade, nothing you uploaded gets deleted.
Here's a made up but very typical example. Say your agency has 8 editors, 4 producers and 3 account managers, which makes 15 members, so Agency covers everyone with room for 35 more, while the people on each client's side who weigh in on a cut comment through the link and never become members. I'm pretty sure that detail is what makes the flat model so easy to put into a proposal, because the line you quote in month one stays the same in month twelve on the same plan. Our video proofing overview covers how the review side works, and I compared video proofing tools for Premiere users in a separate post.
When I would keep Wrike and add a review link
If your team already runs projects in Wrike, my honest view is keep it, right, because moving a planning tool is painful and planning is exactly where Wrike is strong. Split the job by who is reviewing, so internal proofing between your own people can stay in Wrike if you have the add-on, and anything going to an outside client or a freelancer goes through a PlayPause link pasted into the Wrike task, so the project manager still sees the whole job in one place, does that make sense, right.
On our side, the Slack integration sends every comment to a channel, custom statuses can mirror the stages you already use in Wrike, and from Agency up Playbooks hold each client's creative style and direction, with checklists that aren't done until someone ticks them. I'd also write into the statement of work which link the client reviews in and how many rounds are included, and before each round I send a short set of questions for video feedback so the notes come back focused.
I'd stay Wrike only when every reviewer is internal, the add-on is already paid for and nobody on the edit side needs a comment that jumps the Premiere playhead, and the catch here is that adding tools for the sake of it is how agencies end up paying for software nobody opens.
- Outside clients review most of your cuts
- Freelancers deliver versions without an account
- Editors want notes inside Premiere
- Approvers watch on phones between calls
- You want one flat monthly price
Frequently asked questions
Does Wrike include video proofing on every plan?
Wrike's help center says video proofing comes with its Proofing & Approval add-on, so I wouldn't assume every workspace has it switched on. Ask your Wrike admin which add-ons your account includes, then upload a short test export and try marking it up yourself. Files attached from cloud storage apps are not supported for proofing, so test with an uploaded file, right, because that's how your real cuts will have to go in.
Do clients need an account to review a PlayPause link?
Clients don't need an account at all, and that's really the whole point of a client-facing link. They open it in any browser on a laptop or a phone and leave notes that stick to the exact frame, and you can password protect the link or revoke it the moment it travels further than it should. It also means client reviewers never take up one of your workspace members.
Is there a PlayPause equivalent of the Wrike Premiere extension?
PlayPause has its own Premiere Pro panel, and it's the feature my editors would fight me over if I took it away. Comments show up inside Premiere and clicking one jumps the playhead to that frame. Premiere Pro is the only editor with a native panel though, so anyone on your team cutting in Resolve or Final Cut Pro exports, uploads, reviews and then works through the notes in their editor.
Can I run Wrike and PlayPause together?
That's exactly how I'd set it up for a team that already plans in Wrike. Keep tasks and internal approvals in Wrike, send client and freelancer reviews through a PlayPause link pasted into the Wrike task, and turn on the Slack integration so every comment lands in a channel your team already watches. The project manager keeps one source of truth, and the client only ever opens one link, which is basically all they wanted anyway.
Trying a review link next to Wrike
The easiest way to settle this is to run that one cut test on both sides, so pick the client who is slowest to approve, send them a PlayPause link for the next cut, and compare how the notes come back against your Wrike proof. Every plan on our pricing page comes with a 7-day free trial, so you can try Agency with side-by-side compare and guest upload before you decide anything.
So yeah. That's my way of saying it.
Saumyajit co-founded PlayPause after years watching review and approval quietly eat creative teams' deadlines. He writes about the workflow side of video, feedback, versioning, and getting to a clean sign-off.
Related resources
Keep reading
Bring your team into one review space
Centralize feedback, lock approvals, and deliver faster, start free today.
Sign Up for Free