Compare/Midjourney Web Editor Inpainting & Reference Layers vs Runway Act-Three

AI tool comparison

Midjourney Web Editor Inpainting & Reference Layers vs Runway Act-Three

Which one should you ship with? Here is the side-by-side panel verdict, pricing read, reviewer split, and community vote comparison.

M

Design & Creative

Midjourney Web Editor Inpainting & Reference Layers

Precise region editing and multi-layer references, right in your browser

Ship

100%

Panel ship

Community

Paid

Entry

Midjourney's browser-based editor now supports inpainting, allowing users to selectively edit specific regions of generated images without external tools. The update also introduces multi-layer reference images, enabling users to blend style, composition, and character references simultaneously. Both features are integrated directly into the web app, removing the previous dependency on Discord for the core editing workflow.

R

Design & Creative

Runway Act-Three

Animate any character from a single image with no rigging required

Ship

75%

Panel ship

Community

Paid

Entry

Act-Three generates lifelike character animation — including nuanced facial expressions, lip sync, and upper-body motion — from a reference image and an audio or text prompt. It requires no rigging, no motion capture setup, and no 3D modeling expertise. Feed it a still image and audio, and it outputs a video of that character speaking and moving expressively.

Decision
Midjourney Web Editor Inpainting & Reference Layers
Runway Act-Three
Panel verdict
Ship · 4 ship / 0 skip
Ship · 3 ship / 1 skip
Community
No community votes yet
No community votes yet
Pricing
Basic $10/mo / Standard $30/mo / Pro $60/mo / Mega $120/mo
Included in Runway Standard ($15/mo) / Pro ($35/mo) / Unlimited ($95/mo)
Best for
Precise region editing and multi-layer references, right in your browser
Animate any character from a single image with no rigging required
Category
Design & Creative
Design & Creative

Reviewer scorecard

Creator
84/100 · ship

The inpainting actually produces coherent output — fix a hand, swap a background element, adjust a face without nuking the rest of the composition. That's the hard problem other inpainters fumble. The reference layer system is the real unlock: stack a character ref on top of a style ref and the model holds both with real fidelity, not a mushy average. The editing surface is brush-based with adjustable hardness, which is the right call — it matches how illustrators already think about masking. The one failure is the layer stack has no blend mode controls, so if your references fight each other, you can't arbitrate who wins.

84/100 · ship

The output is genuinely uncanny in the right direction — mouth shapes follow phonemes rather than averaging them into a blur, and eye movement has micro-saccades that make the face feel inhabited rather than puppeted. The taste layer is baked in: Runway has made strong decisions about what 'natural' looks like and the defaults hold up. The editing surface is shallow though — you get one pass at timing and expression intensity, and if the audio-driven movement doesn't feel right, your recourse is re-prompting rather than keyframing. The fingerprint is there if you know what to look for (a certain smoothness in head movement transitions), but it's subtle enough that most audiences won't clock it. The craft decision that earns the ship: they prioritized believability in the upper face over perfect lip sync, which is the right call — humans read emotion from eyes first.

Designer
76/100 · ship

The inpainting brush tool is actually designed — there's a clear mask preview in a distinct overlay color, an undo stack that doesn't blow away your full session, and the strength slider gives you real feedback as you drag, not just after you regenerate. What's missing is any visual hierarchy between the reference layer panel and the generation controls; they sit at the same visual weight and the eye has nowhere to land when you're deciding what to adjust next. The empty-state handling is also lazy — drop into a blank editor with no image loaded and you get a generic placeholder instead of a guided first action. Strong fundamentals, unfinished information architecture.

No panel take
Skeptic
72/100 · ship

This is genuinely Midjourney catching up to Stable Diffusion workflows that have existed in ComfyUI and Automatic1111 for two years — credit where it's due for packaging it without requiring a local GPU and a PhD in node graphs. The specific scenario where this breaks is complex product photography: multi-layer references with fine texture like fabric or intricate logos still drift noticeably after inpaint cycles, which means professional retouching workflows aren't fully replaced yet. What kills this tool in 12 months isn't a competitor — it's Adobe Firefly and the Photoshop generative fill team, who now have a direct target to match feature-for-feature. Midjourney wins if their model quality gap holds; right now it does.

76/100 · ship

Direct competitors are HeyGen and D-ID, both of which have been doing audio-driven avatar animation for two years — so the category isn't new. What Act-Three actually does differently is animate non-avatar characters: illustrated figures, stylized portraits, fictional characters from concept art, not just photorealistic headshots. That's the real differentiator and Runway should be saying it louder. The scenario where this breaks is any character with an unusual face structure — highly stylized art with asymmetric features, animals, or side-profile images all produce artifacts that break the illusion immediately. What kills this in 12 months: HeyGen ships stylized character support and undercuts on price, because Runway's model costs scale faster than their subscription tiers suggest. What would have to be true for me to be wrong: Runway has quietly built proprietary training data on non-photorealistic characters that HeyGen can't replicate cheaply.

Futurist
78/100 · ship

The thesis here is that non-destructive, multi-reference generative editing becomes a standard primitive in all creative software — not a specialty feature but a baseline expectation, the way layers were after Photoshop 3.0. Midjourney stacking inpainting and reference layers in the same session is a bet that the editing and generation workflows converge into a single surface, eliminating the round-trip between generator and editor that currently fragments creative pipelines. The second-order effect that matters: if this works at quality, it transfers creative leverage from production designers who own the toolchain to art directors and clients who only own taste — and that's a real power shift in agency workflows. The dependency that has to hold is Midjourney's model quality advantage over commodity diffusion endpoints; the moment that gap closes, the web editor is just a UI wrapper.

81/100 · ship

The thesis Act-Three bets on: within three years, the cost of character animation drops below the cost of casting voice actors, which collapses the economic barrier for indie game cutscenes, educational simulations, and localized marketing. The dependency that has to hold is that generated motion stays legally distinct from the reference image subject — if a court rules that animating a real person's photo requires their consent for every output frame, this use case evaporates for commercial work. The second-order effect that matters: this doesn't just speed up animation, it shifts creative power to writers and concept artists who've never had access to motion tools. The scenario where this is infrastructure: a game studio uses Act-Three to generate all NPC dialogue animations in 48 hours instead of a 6-week mocap pipeline. Runway is early on the non-photorealistic animation trend line, and early is where the moat gets built.

Founder
No panel take
55/100 · skip

The buyer here is a content creator or small studio who pays out of the Runway subscription they already have — Act-Three is a feature, not a product, which means Runway captures the value through subscription retention rather than direct pricing. That's fine for Runway as a company, but it means Act-Three lives or dies by whether it drives Runway plan upgrades, and I'm skeptical it does at the current quality tier for professional buyers. The moat question is brutal: HeyGen has a head start in the enterprise avatar market, Kling and Hailuo are compressing the consumer market from below, and Act-Three is wedged in the middle with no obvious distribution advantage. What would need to change: Act-Three needs to either go upmarket into a dedicated API product with per-second pricing that studios can actually budget for, or become the clear quality leader with a public benchmark. Right now it's neither.

Weekly AI Tool Verdicts

Get the next comparison in your inbox

New AI tools ship daily. We compare them before you waste an afternoon.

Bookmarks

Loading bookmarks...

No bookmarks yet

Bookmark tools to save them for later