Clarivnt vs Inpainty

Clarivnt and Inpainty are both image generation tracked by AIDiveForge. Below is a side-by-side comparison of pricing, capabilities, platforms, and ownership — sourced from each tool's live website and verified before publishing.

Clarivnt

Clarivnt handles fading, scratches, blur, and face detail in a single upload-and-download loop — no software to install, no editing skill required. The workflow is three steps: upload a scan, let the AI process it, download the result alongside your untouched original. The vendor explicitly states results vary with source condition and resolution, which is the honest version of the ceiling every AI restoration tool hits. Two free credits on signup let you test against your actual photos before committing to a paid subscription. There is no API and no self-hosted path, so teams needing batch automation or integration into a broader pipeline will run into a wall fast.

Inpainty

Upload a PNG, JPG, or WebP screenshot and the AI marks every detected text block as a clickable target. Tap a block, retype the text, download. The tool regenerates the image attempting to match the original font family, weight, size, and color. No account, no installation, no Photoshop license. The ceiling appears fast: single-block edits on clean screenshots work well, but complex backgrounds, decorative fonts, or tightly kerned text will produce mismatches the tool cannot recover from. When that happens, teams open Figma or Photoshop anyway.

Attribute	Clarivnt	Inpainty
Pricing	Paid	Free
Price	$9.99 / month	—
Free trial	No	No
Open source	No	Yes
Has API	No	No
Self-hosted option	No	No
Platforms	Web	Web (browser), iOS, Android
Pros	No software installation required, so you can start from any device with a browser — no IT ticket, no compatibility check, no blocked afternoon. The original file stays untouched and is kept alongside the restored version, which means you never lose the source record you started with. No public gallery step, so your family photos are not published or indexed as part of using the service — a meaningful boundary that most general-purpose image tools do not draw. The AI processes fading, scratches, blur, and face detail in a single pass, so you are not manually sequencing separate tools for each damage type. Two free restoration credits on account creation let you test against your actual photos under real conditions before spending anything.	No signup and no installation required, so a teammate who needs a one-time fix can be done before the time it takes to provision a Figma seat. AI detects every text block independently and makes each one clickable, which means you do not have to mask or locate text regions manually the way you would in an image editor. Format preservation per block — font family, weight, size, and color — so localized screenshots stay visually consistent with the source without manual style matching. Mobile-first editing with native share sheet support on iOS and Android, so the fix-and-share loop does not require a desktop if the screenshot originated on a phone. Text replacement doubles as content removal — typing nothing or replacement copy into a block hides names, prices, or emails, so sensitive screenshots can be shared without a separate redaction tool.
Cons	There is no API and no batch processing mode. A team needing to restore dozens or hundreds of images without clicking through each one individually has no path forward here — they move to a service with an API or build a pipeline around a model they call directly. Restoration quality is explicitly tied to source scan resolution and condition. A heavily degraded print with low scan resolution will produce a limited result, and there is no described upscaling or pre-processing step within the tool to compensate — you prepare the best scan you can before uploading, or the ceiling appears immediately. The credit-based subscription model means high-volume personal users — anyone working through a large family archive — will accumulate costs on a per-image basis with no described bulk or flat-rate option beyond the monthly plan, making cost unpredictable for large batches. No self-hosted option exists, so any team or organization with data residency requirements or policies against uploading personal images to third-party cloud services cannot use this tool at all.	On decorative fonts, non-Latin scripts with complex rendering, or screenshots with photographic backgrounds, the regenerated text visibly mismatches the original — the vendor acknowledges this with 'tries to match' language, and there is no manual override for font or color. Teams with brand-critical assets open a design tool at that point. There is no batch mode, no API, and no self-hosting path, so any team that needs to process more than a handful of screenshots — automated localization pipelines, QA screenshot diffing, documentation generation at scale — hits the tool's ceiling immediately and switches to a scripted solution or a design platform with programmatic export.

Bottom line

Clarivnt is paid while Inpainty is free; Inpainty is open source. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Clarivnt and Inpainty?

Clarivnt is Paid, while Inpainty is Free and open source. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is Clarivnt better than Inpainty?

It depends on your workflow. Use the side-by-side attributes (pricing, open source, API, self-hosted, platforms) to decide. AIDiveForge does not rank a universal winner — we publish verified facts so you can choose.