€600 or €6000: How Much is a Render Worth?

Assigning a price to a single architectural render is surprisingly complex. At its core, a render is more than a visual—it’s an investment, a design statement, and a benchmark of digital craftsmanship. It merges creative vision, technical precision, and aesthetic judgement, making its value feel both clear and hard to define. This ambiguity only deepens during times of global instability, when studios must walk a tightrope between maintaining artistic standards and meeting both clients’ budgetary constraints and expectations.

Yet even in uncertain times, one thing remains clear: visualization is essential in architecture because it allows people to see and understand projects before they’re built. That power comes at a price, and behind that price is a logic worth unpacking. To better understand how the value of 3D visualization is determined, we asked the two CEOs of ZOA Studio, Máté Hámori and András Onodi, and the studio’s Head of Art, Bence Falussy, all of whom have spent a decade fine-tuning a pricing philosophy that balances art with profitability.

At ZOA Studio, the pricing of a render doesn’t start with the image itself—it begins with time. The baseline assumption is that one image equals one week of work, or approximately 40 hours. This estimation reflects not just execution, but the commitment to delivering a consistently high level of quality. “When we first started, we didn’t even know what others were charging,” András recalls. “We simply priced based on how much time we thought a great image would take us.”

Over the years, that logic evolved into a clearer structure. A single high-end exterior render typically falls between €1,000 and €3,000, while interior visuals are usually priced below this—between €500 and €2,000. At the lower end, you’ll find simpler spaces like small bathrooms, whereas complex, large-scale interiors, such as malls or theaters, fall on the higher end. In the case of the latter, the premium pricing signals what clients pay for studios who can confidently take on the risk of presenting these high-stakes projects with compressed deadlines. These aren’t arbitrary figures, they reflect the effort, know-how, and dialogue involved in every project. Interestingly, as projects scale and more images are requested, the pricing per image usually decreases. That’s because the heavy lifting happens with the first visual: building the model, composing the scene, preparing lighting, and assets. Once that foundation is laid, additional renders become less labor-intensive.

There’s also a clear distinction between image types. Marketing images often require importing or cleaning up complex 3D models and preparing surrounding environments—a workload that’s priced separately from the images themselves. Competition visuals, on the other hand, tend to be more concept-driven and creatively open, often with a tighter timeline and a need for stronger storytelling.

Little known fact, but it’s not rendering that consumes the most time—it’s collaboration. Aligning a client’s evolving vision with the studio’s creative direction can easily double the workload. “If a client gives us full freedom, we can create breathtaking images in less time and with fewer revisions,” says Bence. “But if there are multiple feedback rounds or the direction changes midway, it increases the cost.” This is why client involvement and their level of control become a subtle yet powerful driver of price that is often overlooked. Compared to some high-end studios, we tend to give clients more control over the end product. As András puts it: “Clients love us because they get top-tier quality while still being in control.” But it also has to be said that that control comes with time, and time is what we’re really pricing.

Beyond base costs, several factors influence the final price of an image. The model’s complexity, the number of design details, and even how well it has been prepared can shift the workload significantly. The same goes for the aforementioned aspect of communication: projects that require multiple client approvals, long feedback loops, or frequent design updates inevitably accumulate more hours, and thus, higher costs. Sometimes, a render even needs more than just polish—it needs conceptual framing. That might mean creating specific weather moods, introducing whole cityscapes without a reference, or adding nuanced storytelling layers that aren’t visually explicit but emotionally resonant. These require planning, sketching, reference research, and idea development. All of which have to be factored into the price tag.

Artist seniority also plays a key role that cannot be understated. At ZOA, high-end visuals are often entrusted to senior artists who bring not only technical finesse but also creative oversight. This makes a difference in subtle but impactful ways: choosing the right camera angle to convey scale, or understanding material behavior under real light. These images may cost more, but the added value is felt throughout the presentation. For particularly complex visuals like aerial perspectives, an additional premium in the €500–1000 range is typical, as these types of images often require drone photography, integration of topography data, and careful compositing that goes beyond the standard render workflow. Bence describes it best: “The final image always meets the same quality standard. What changes is how hard it is to get there.”

But when is a client supposed to ask a studio to go beyond standard requirements? “There are key moments in a project’s life, like when it’s being pitched, launched, or funded, that require visuals which stand out from the crowd,” Máté explains. “At those points, a good render is an investment, not an expense.” This is why some studios can even shoot for a €4000-6000 price range if they can validate that high expense with their experience, artistry, and outcome. Máté adds a great point he often likes to reference: “The reason a truly great image is more expensive is because being slightly better than average takes a huge amount of effort. It’s the 80/20 rule: the last 20% of quality requires 80% of the work.”

Technological improvements and culture are also driving factors in pricing. When visualization was still a novelty, clients were impressed just to see their building visualized in any form, so back when it wasn’t even possible to simulate real light behavior or subtle atmospheric effects, artists compensated with stylization. But today, anything short of real shadows, believable reflections, and natural ambience will stand out like a sore thumb. Photorealism became the baseline.

At the same time, regional expectations have become more defined over the decades. European studios, for instance, are known for their conceptual bravery. Clients in this region are often more open to experimentation and encourage studios to explore narrative-driven approaches. In contrast, some Asian and Eastern studios focus more on execution and technical consistency, not better or worse, just different. “There’s a taste difference, not a quality gap,” Bence notes. “Europe, in particular, leads in visual storytelling and atmosphere. Clients expect ideas, not just images.” This makes visualization even more nuanced: it’s not just about producing a technically correct image, but about crafting a culturally resonant one.

It should come as no surprise to anyone working in or around architectural fields that for the better part of a decade, prices steadily increased across the whole market. As quality expectations rose, so did the value of a single image. But over the last three years, prices leveled off. Not because demand dropped, but because technology caught up. With rendering engines becoming faster and workflows more efficient, studios could maintain quality with fewer hours. That newfound speed helped pricing stabilize, even in a growing industry.

But the horizon is shifting once again: AI, for all its current limitations, is rapidly improving. Its ability to support early-stage ideation, lighting experimentation, or rapid prototyping means that even architects themselves may soon generate half-decent visuals in-house. Studios that once thrived on mid-range quality may find themselves squeezed out. “As AI raises the bar on what’s possible with less effort,” says Bence, “the lower tier of visualization will disappear. What remains is the top, those who know how to elevate a design by bringing creative authorship, taste, judgment, and visual storytelling to the table.”

Ultimately, a render’s price reflects more than just work hours or pixel count. It reflects the shared ambition to communicate architectural ideas in their best possible way. Some high-end studios operate more like fine dining restaurants: you get the chef’s vision, not yours. And some clients are happy to pay for stunning images with minimal revisions, even if it means less creative control. At ZOA Studio, our 20 years of experience have shaped a friendlier, more collaborative approach that allows us to tailor visual packages to different budgets and client needs. Whether for competitions, internal approvals, or public launches, our aim is always the same: to create imagery that works. And amazes people, given any budget.

Our clients don’t just walk away with pretty renderings but with visual tools that open doors, win competitions, and elevate architecture. That’s why pricing isn’t arbitrary—it’s tailored to ensure the outcome is more than worth the input. To reiterate what Máté stated: at the end of the day, the right image, at the right moment, can make all the difference.

Have a project in mind? Request our pricing deck at hello@zoa3d.com, or use the form below.