Both are AI face-recognition platforms: guests find their event photos with a selfie. Kwikpic is the broader product with a mobile app; TurtlePic is built to deliver the photographer’s original files. Tested on a 26 MB camera file: TurtlePic returned it unchanged, Kwikpic a 1 MB copy by default.
Last updated: 10 August 2026
Two thousand photos, one link, and someone’s mother who wants the one where everybody finally looked at the camera printed big for the wall. Whether that print is even possible was decided months earlier, by whichever platform the photographer uploaded to. This page measures what each of them hands back.
The short version
| Summary | TurtlePic | Kwikpic |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | AI face-recognition photo delivery. Guests find their own photos with a selfie. Web only, no app | AI face-recognition photo delivery, on the web and a mobile app |
| Best for | Delivering the photographer’s originals intact | An app-based gallery with the widest feature surface |
| What the plan meters | Storage. Photos unlimited | Photo count. 20,000 to 500,000 by plan |
| Nearest plans on price | Standard, Rs 15,000/year, 500 GB | Essential, Rs 14,990/year + GST, 200,000 photos |
| The one thing that decides it | You want the file that came out of the camera | You want a mobile app |
At a glance
This is the whole comparison in one place: what a guest actually receives, what each plan meters and costs, what guests have to give up to see their photos, and where each product stops.
How to read the first four rows. One photo, a 25.1 MB file straight off a Canon EOS R5, was uploaded to both platforms on the same day, then downloaded back the way a guest receives it. Those four rows describe what came back from each, which is why the numbers differ. Everything below them comes from each company’s published pages or from using the two products.
Rows one and two are the pair worth reading together, because they answer two different questions that are easy to confuse. Pixel count is how big the image is on screen or on paper. File size is how much picture information is actually in it. Kwikpic’s paid high-resolution setting holds the full pixel dimensions, in a re-saved file that is smaller than the original, with the camera details removed. Full resolution and the original file are two different claims, and this page is mostly about the gap between them.
Everything in this table was measured or read on, and the Basis column says which.
We ran the tests on this page, and you should not take our word for any of them. That is exactly why the method is published: every row above that describes a comparison, whether of file sizes, image dimensions or camera metadata, can be repeated by anyone, on either platform, in about three minutes, and the steps are further down this page. A measurement you can reproduce is worth more than a claim you have to trust, including ours.
Rows not marked as a test are each company’s own published or in-product statement. Where Kwikpic publishes nothing, the cell reads Not specified rather than a guess. Measurements are scoped to one account and one gallery on each platform.
Read the table, then the sections under it explain the rows that actually decide the choice.
| Feature | TurtlePic | Kwikpic | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Size of the photo a guest downloads, from a 25.1 MB original | 25.1 MB, all of it | 1.05 MB by default · 4.96 MB with high resolution on | Downloaded file measured. Read this row together with the next one |
| Image dimensions, from an 8192 x 5464 original: the pixel count, not the same thing as the file | 8192 × 5464 (44.8 MP), unchanged | 1440 × 2160 (3.1 MP) by default · with high resolution on, 5464 × 8192 (44.8 MP): full dimensions come back, turned upright, but re-saved smaller | Downloaded file measured |
| Identical to the photographer’s original | Yes, every byte matches | No, on either setting | Whole file compared using a checksum (SHA-256) |
| Camera details kept: camera, lens, date and settings | All 62 items | 2 of 62. Camera, lens and date removed on both settings | Metadata read from both files |
| What the plan meters | Storage: 50 GB to 2 TB, photos unlimited | Photo count: 20,000 to 500,000 photos | Both companies’ pricing pages |
| Entry paid plan | Starter, Rs 6,000/year + GST, 50 GB | Basic, Rs 3,490/year + GST, 20,000 photos | Both pricing pages, both showing promotional rates |
| What full resolution costs you | Nothing extra. A 25 MB photo uses 25 MB of storage | 2.5× the quota. Kwikpic’s in-product notice: “1 High resolution Upload = 2.5 Photos” | TurtlePic: plan page · Kwikpic: their in-product notice |
| Deleting frees the space again | Yes, as often as you like, at no cost | Once free, then Rs 2,500 a time. Confirmed by Kwikpic customer care on a 100,000-photo plan. Not documented anywhere they publish | TurtlePic: product · Kwikpic: their customer care, 10 August 2026 |
| Most photos allowed in one event | 30,000 (1,000 on the free trial) | Not published | TurtlePic: plan page · Kwikpic: nothing found |
| Largest single file allowed | No cap, you can also upload 30MB+ | Not published | TurtlePic: plan page Kwikpic: not published anywhere |
| Guests can view without giving details | From Standard up (Rs 15,000/year + GST). Not on Starter or Basic | Premium only (Rs 29,990/year + GST), listed as “Anonymous Viewing” | Both pricing pages |
| What a guest has to do | Take a selfie and find their photos instantly | Enter their details, take a selfie, then find their photos | TurtlePic: product · Kwikpic: confirmed on our own account, plus their pricing page |
| Bulk download | ZIP; the files inside came out identical to the originals | Available on every plan. The files are the same processed copies, not the originals | TurtlePic: ZIP downloaded and its contents downloaded in original resolution · Kwikpic: file downloaded but its contents get compresses |
| Where guests can view | Web | Web and a mobile app | TurtlePic: no app listing exists · Kwikpic: their group settings |
| Face-match accuracy | 99.9% | 99.9% | Each company’s own published claim. |
Two things this page will not do.
We do not compare face-recognition accuracy. Both companies publish 99.9%. Neither figure has an independent study behind it that we could find, so putting them side by side and declaring a winner would be inventing a result. We report both as claims and leave it there.
We do not convert one pricing model into the other and declare a winner. The two meters are not commensurable without knowing your average file size. The arithmetic is below so you can run it on your own numbers.
Where the two platforms actually differ
Both use AI face recognition, and both publish the same 99.9% accuracy figure. Both share by link and QR code. Both offer bulk download on every paid plan, business branding, and watermarks. Those are parity features and listing them would pad the page. Below are the four axes where the answer genuinely changes depending on which you pick.
1. What actually arrives when someone downloads?
This is the whole comparison, and it is the only part that can be settled with arithmetic instead of opinion. On 9 August 2026 the same photo, a 25.1 MB Canon EOS R5 JPEG at 44.8 megapixels carrying 62 items of camera metadata, went through both platforms and was downloaded back the way a recipient receives it. Exact figure for anyone repeating the test: 26,336,649 bytes.
| Kind of loss | TurtlePic | Kwikpic default | Kwikpic high-resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resized: pixels destroyed, permanently | No | Yes, 6.9% retained | No |
| Re-encoded: same pixels, fewer bytes | No | Yes | Yes, full dimensions in a smaller file |
| Metadata stripped | No | Yes, 60 of 62 tags | Yes, 60 of 62 tags |
Kwikpic sells a paid high-resolution setting, which holds the image at its full pixel dimensions. It still does not return the original file whereas TurtlePic retains the original file along with the metadata.
What it does not return is the original file. At identical dimensions the file carries roughly one fifth of the original’s data, which is re-encoding at a lower JPEG quality setting, and the camera, lens and capture date are gone in both tiers.
“Original resolution” and “the original file” are two different claims. That distinction is the reason this test was run at all.
TurtlePic’s result is the boring one: 25.1 MB in, 25.1 MB out, identical checksum, all 62 metadata items present, and zero differing bytes across a full binary comparison of all 26,336,649 of them. Verified two ways that can each fail independently, and reproduced through the bulk ZIP download as well: the extracted files matched the originals exactly, so bundling 2,000 photos does not shrink them. There is more on this in our guide to the best photo sharing apps for high resolution photos.
Scope, stated rather than hidden. One file, one gallery, one date, on each platform. The Kwikpic result was reproduced twice on the default setting and three times on high resolution across two download routes, all byte-identical, so it is deterministic pipeline behaviour rather than a one-off.
You do not have to take either number on trust. Upload one known file, download it back as a recipient, and compare the file size, the image dimensions and the checksum. If the checksum matches, nothing was done to the file. It takes about three minutes and it settles any claim on any platform’s homepage, including ours.
2. Does the plan meter storage, or photo count?
This is the structural difference, and it is the one most likely to decide the bill. Both sets of figures below are from each company’s own pricing page, read the same day, on the annual billing view. Both were showing promotional rates, so treat them as a snapshot rather than a rate card.
| TurtlePic plans | Included | Kwikpic photographer plans | Included |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter, Rs 6,000/year + GST | 50 GB | Basic, Rs 3,490/year + GST | 20,000 photos, 20 videos |
| Basic, Rs 11,000/year + GST | 100 GB | Standard, Rs 7,490/year + GST | 100,000 photos, 100 videos |
| Standard, Rs 15,000/year + GST | 500 GB | Essential, Rs 14,990/year + GST | 200,000 photos, 200 videos |
| Pro, Rs 22,500/year · Elite, Rs 32,000/year, both + GST | 1 TB · 2 TB | Premium, Rs 29,990/year + GST | 500,000 photos, 500 videos |
Kwikpic counts photos. TurtlePic counts bytes. On TurtlePic the number of photos is stated as unlimited on every paid plan and the meter is storage, with a ceiling of 30,000 photos in any single event. On Kwikpic the plan is a photo allowance and storage is not the unit.
Note the two middle plans: Rs 14,990 and Rs 15,000. Near-identical price, entirely different thing being bought.
3. What does it cost to put a given file in a guest’s hands?
Kwikpic’s own interface states the exchange rate, and their wording is the best source for it: “1 High resolution Upload = 2.5 Photos”. So a 1,000-photo wedding delivered at full resolution consumes 2,500 photos of quota. That is not a criticism. It is a documented, transparent multiplier, and metering by output size is a reasonable way to build a business.
The tempting comparison is the wrong one. Lining up photos-per-plan at a given upload size looks fair and is not, because the two platforms do not hand the guest the same file. Upload an 8 MB photo and a TurtlePic guest downloads 8 MB; a Kwikpic guest downloads roughly 1 MB by default, or about 1.6 MB with high resolution on. Comparing those as though they were the same photo flatters whichever platform is delivering less.
So the table below is built the other way round. Pick the file you want the guest to end up with, then see what each plan costs to deliver it. Both columns use list price before tax; storage is counted at 1 GB = 1,000 MB.
One thing to know before reading it. Kwikpic’s photo count does not move with file size at all, it moves with which of its two upload modes you use: the default holds 200,000 photos of any size, high resolution holds 80,000. So each row below uses the mode that fits that file size, the default at 1 MB and high resolution above it, because nobody uploads a 15 MB photo intending it to arrive as 1 MB. TurtlePic has no modes, so its figure is simply the storage divided by the file.
| Photo size you upload | Photos you can hold on TurtlePic Standard, Rs 15,000/year | Photos you can hold on Kwikpic Essential, Rs 14,990/year + GST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 MB | 500,000 | 200,000 |
| 5 MB | 100,000 | 80,000 |
On raw count Kwikpic looks better as the files get bigger, and the reason is simple: a photo quota ignores file size completely. Twenty thousand photos means twenty thousand photos whether each one is 1 MB or 25 MB. So the number that has to sit beside it is what the guest actually ends up with.
| The photo we put through both | What a TurtlePic guest downloaded | What a Kwikpic guest downloaded, high resolution on |
|---|---|---|
| 6.43 MB, 5068 x 3379 (17.1 MP) | 6.43 MB, the identical file | 4.17 MB |
| 25.1 MB, 5464 x 8192 (44.8 MP) | 25.1 MB, the identical file | 4.96 MB |
How much survives is not a fixed proportion. The 6.43 MB photo came back holding 65% of its data, the 25.1 MB photo 20%. How much you lose depends on the photograph, not on a percentage you can plan around. Dimensions were held in both cases; what changed was the amount of picture information inside them.
And in no test did a file come back above 5 MB. The largest was 4.96 MB, from a 25.1 MB original. We would not call that a published ceiling, because two photographs cannot establish one, but it is what we measured and it is the number to plan around until Kwikpic says otherwise.
That is the trade in one pair of tables. Upload a 5 MB photo to Kwikpic and you can store 80,000 of them, but the person you shot it for downloads about 1 MB. Upload the same photo to TurtlePic and you can store 100,000, and the guest downloads all 5 MB of it. You are not buying storage. You are buying what arrives at the other end.
There is no upload size at which a Kwikpic guest receives a 15 MB file, and we have not seen it return one above 5 MB in any test. Kwikpic has two outputs and no dial between them: the default, and high resolution, which keeps the dimensions but re-saves the file smaller. You cannot ask it for a 15 MB download. On TurtlePic the delivered size is the file you uploaded, so it is a number you choose rather than one you discover.
How firm are these numbers? The photo counts are exact, taken from each company’s published plans. The delivery figures come from putting the same two photographs through both platforms and measuring what came back, which is the table further down. The one figure we have not measured is what Kwikpic returns from a 15 MB upload specifically; what we can say is that across every file we tested, nothing came back above 5 MB.
On cost per photo, the two cross over at about 6 MB of delivered file. Below that, storage is cheaper: a 1 MB photo barely touches 500 GB but still costs a whole photo of Kwikpic’s allowance, so TurtlePic works out at roughly Rs 0.03 a photo against Kwikpic’s Rs 0.07. Above it, Kwikpic’s flat per-photo rate is cheaper, and we are not going to pretend otherwise. What that comparison cannot capture is that the two are not selling the same thing at the top of the range.
And the two “photos” are still not the same object. Whatever the row says, a Kwikpic high-resolution file is a re-saved copy holding less data than the original’s data with the camera details removed, while a TurtlePic file is the original. Above a certain quality bar the cheaper column is not selling the thing being compared.
Two things worth knowing before you pick a tier on either side. Kwikpic’s cost per full-resolution photo is nearly flat across its middle plans, with Standard and Essential both working out near Rs 0.19, so moving up buys volume rather than a better rate. TurtlePic’s ladder is the opposite: Standard gives five times Basic’s storage for 36% more money (500 GB at Rs 15,000 against 100 GB at Rs 11,000), so the entry plans are poor value per gigabyte and Standard is where the storage model starts to pay.
One caveat on the money: both pages were showing discounted prices on the day they were read, so treat these as a snapshot rather than a standing rate card.
One more thing decides how far a plan really goes: whether deleting an old event gives the space back. It matters more than the headline number. A photographer shooting forty events a year does not need forty events live at once, so a plan you can clear and reuse is worth far more than the same plan counted once.
On TurtlePic the storage is reusable without limit. Delete a finished event and its gigabytes return to your plan, as often as you like. The 500 GB on the Standard plan is a ceiling on how much is live at any one moment, not a budget for the year, so there is no cap on how many photos you can deliver over twelve months.
Kwikpic’s published documentation describes the same behaviour. Their help centre states that “deleting a group will clear storage space after 24 hours”, that deleted photos sit in a recoverable folder for those 24 hours, and that backed-up photos “count towards your overall Kwikpic storage limit”. They also document a route TurtlePic has no equivalent for: transfer a group to the client, and the photos are “removed from your storage space” while staying live for the new owner. That is a good answer to a real problem, when your plan is full but the client still wants the gallery.
On Kwikpic the first clear-out is free and the rest are billed. We put this to their customer care on 10 August 2026 and they walked through it on a 100,000-photo plan: fill it, delete all 100,000 once at no cost and upload another 100,000, and from then on each time you want to clear it you pay Rs 2,500. So a plan carries twice its stated quota for free, and every reset after that is a fresh charge. None of this appears anywhere Kwikpic publishes, not in the thirty articles in their help centre and not on either pricing page.
Because deleting is free and unlimited on TurtlePic, the plan you need there is set by how much is live at one time, not by how much you deliver over the year. Clear a finished event once guests have their photos and the space comes straight back. That changes which plans are worth putting side by side, so the comparison below uses TurtlePic’s entry plan against the Kwikpic plan their support quoted. Every figure is what the whole year costs to deliver that many photos, reset fees included.
| Photos delivered in a year, high resolution on | TurtlePic Starter Rs 6,000/year + GST, 50 GB Reusable without limit | Kwikpic Standard Rs 7,490/year + GST, 100,000 photos One free reset, then Rs 2,500 each |
|---|---|---|
| 80,000 | Rs 6,000 | Rs 7,490 |
| 120,000 | Rs 6,000 | Rs 9,990 |
| 160,000 | Rs 6,000 | Rs 12,490 |
| 200,000 | Rs 6,000 | Rs 14,990 |
| 240,000 | Rs 6,000 | Rs 17,490 |
All figures exclude GST, which both companies add, so the two columns are directly comparable.
How those totals are worked out. On Kwikpic the plan buys 100,000 photo credits and a high-resolution upload costs 2.5 of them, so one fill is 40,000 photos. The first clear-out is free, which is how the plan reaches 80,000 for its sticker price. Every clear-out after that is Rs 2,500 for another 40,000: Rs 9,990 takes you to 120,000, Rs 12,490 to 160,000, Rs 14,990 to 200,000, Rs 17,490 to 240,000. On TurtlePic the plan fee is the whole cost at every one of those volumes, because clearing an event is free however many times you do it. The 50 GB is not an annual budget, it is how much can sit there at once.
One column moves and the other does not. Kwikpic’s rises because every reset after the first is charged again; TurtlePic’s does not, because clearing an event costs nothing however many times you do it.
Two conditions on that TurtlePic column, and they both matter. First, 50 GB is roughly 10,000 photos at 5 MB each, so Starter only works if you clear finished events rather than leaving everything up. Second, and this is the fairer objection: Kwikpic Standard holds 100,000 photos live against Starter’s 10,000. If you need a large back catalogue permanently available, that is a real difference, and the honest comparison is against TurtlePic Standard at Rs 15,000, where the two come out level at around 200,000 photos a year.
The harder problem is not the total, it is that you cannot work it out in advance. A storage plan tells you what the year costs on the day you buy it. A plan with reset fees tells you what the first two fills cost, and the rest depends on how much work comes in. One caveat we will not paper over: Rs 2,500 was confirmed for a 100,000-photo plan, which is the one support used. We do not know whether the same figure applies on the smaller and larger plans, so we have not assumed it does.
What Kwikpic does not publish anywhere is what happens at the moment the allowance runs out, whether uploads stop, queue or bill. TurtlePic’s ceiling is a storage figure, so that answer is arithmetic. If you are near either limit, ask before you are on a deadline.
4. Do your guests have to identify themselves?
Both platforms let guests view a gallery without handing over details, and both of them charge for it. This is published by each company, so it is checkable in a minute.
| Anonymous viewing | TurtlePic | Kwikpic |
|---|---|---|
| Feature name on the pricing page | Anonymous Guest Viewing | Anonymous Viewing |
| Lowest plan that includes it | Standard, Rs 15,000/year + GST | Premium, Rs 29,990/year + GST |
| Not available on | Free Trial, Starter, Basic | Free, Basic, Standard, Essential |
So the honest version is not “TurtlePic guests stay anonymous and Kwikpic guests do not”. It is that both gate it, and TurtlePic gates it at half the price. Below those plans, on either platform, the guest gives something up to see their photos.
Underneath that, the models differ. TurtlePic’s guest path is a selfie, with no app and no login, and whether any further details are requested is the event host’s choice through the selfie search form fields. Guests do not upload photos to TurtlePic; they take a selfie so the system can find the photos they are already in.
On Kwikpic, a guest gives an email address and joins the gallery as a group participant, which means an account. We confirmed that on our own Kwikpic account, and it matches what Kwikpic publishes: unlimited User Registration is listed on every plan, and Anonymous Viewing is sold as a Premium feature.
So the accurate statement is not that Kwikpic always requires an account. It is that on every Kwikpic plan below Premium a guest identifies themselves to see their photos, and Kwikpic prices anonymity as an upgrade.
If guests do end up with an account, that is a genuine trade rather than a flaw: an identity model is how you get a persistent app where a guest’s photos from six different events live in one place. It is simply the opposite bet from TurtlePic’s.
When Kwikpic is the better choice
Two cases, and they are real.
1. You want a flipbook album or a portfolio website in the same subscription. Kwikpic’s published plans include a Portfolio Website from Essential up and a Digital Flipbook Album on Premium, alongside 50+ gallery themes, Sponsor Branding and Instant Upload from a camera or folder. TurtlePic has none of those today. If a flipbook or a portfolio site is on your list, that is a real reason to pick Kwikpic.
2. You shoot occasionally and want the cheapest possible plan. Kwikpic Basic is Rs 3,490 a year against TurtlePic Starter’s Rs 6,000. For someone delivering a handful of events a year, who never needs to clear the plan more than once, that is genuinely less money.
Both of those come with the same caveat, and it is the one to check against your own volume. Kwikpic’s transfer-ownership feature, which hands a group to the client and clears it from your storage, is the tidy answer to a full plan. It is also, in practice, the way around a charge TurtlePic does not have: one free clear-out, then Rs 2,500 each time, confirmed by their customer care and published nowhere. Whether the cheaper plan stays cheaper depends entirely on how much you shoot.
Where the two are simply level: both publish 99.9% face-match accuracy, both offer bulk download on every paid plan, both do business branding and watermarks, and both have team logins and client-favourites selection. Kwikpic’s flat per-photo rate also works out cheaper than storage once delivered files pass about 6 MB.
If you are weighing the wider field rather than just these two, we keep a list of Kwikpic alternatives and a view of the best event photo sharing app in India.
If you are thinking about switching
We have not run a migration, so this is a diligence checklist rather than a how-to. Five things to establish before you move, all answerable in an afternoon.
1. Work out which meter suits your files. Take your last three events, divide total gigabytes by total photos, and run that average through the table above. If your originals are small, a photo quota goes further. If they are 25 MB camera files, storage is the binding constraint and you should size the plan for bytes, not for headcount.
2. Find out what you are actually holding. Kwikpic’s stored filenames embed the original byte count of the uploaded file, a name of the form …@26336649@1518.JPG tells you exactly what was fed in, independent of what gets served out. Compare that number against what a download gives you. If they match, you are holding originals. If they do not, the difference is the pipeline.
3. Decide whether anonymous viewing matters, and price for it. Both platforms charge for letting guests view without identifying themselves, and they charge very differently: TurtlePic includes it from Standard (Rs 15,000/year), Kwikpic from Premium (Rs 29,990/year + GST). If your clients care about guests not having to register, that single row can move the cheapest workable plan by more than the headline price does.
4. Keep your own originals. This is the one that actually matters and it is true regardless of which platform you pick. Whatever a platform hands back is the version that survives the decade for every guest who never asked you for the files. Your drive, or your NAS, is the archive. The platform is distribution.
5. Assume your old links stop working. Kwikpic share links resolve into Kwikpic galleries. Anything you have already sent a client will not follow you to another platform, so plan a re-notification for any event you still want reachable. If weddings are the bulk of your work, our wedding photo sharing page covers what that handover looks like.
Both platforms list bulk download on every paid plan, so getting your delivered files out in bulk is available either way. What differs is what those files are: on TurtlePic the files inside the bulk ZIP came out exactly as they went in, and on Kwikpic the bulk path serves whatever the pipeline produced at upload time.
Frequently asked questions
What is the face recognition app for wedding photos?
Several platforms do this, TurtlePic and Kwikpic among them, and they work the same way at the guest end: the guest takes a selfie, the platform matches that face against the event gallery, and only their photos come back. The differences worth checking before you commit are what resolution the guest’s download arrives at, whether the plan meters storage or photo count, and whether guests have to identify themselves to view. All three are covered above.
Which app is best for sharing pics?
It depends on what has to survive the trip. For messaging a few photos, any messaging app is fine, they all re-encode on upload. For event photos that will be printed, cropped for reels or kept, use a platform that delivers the file at its original size, and verify it rather than trusting the claim. Upload one known file, download it back as a recipient, and compare the file size, the image dimensions and the checksum checksum.
How to share images in high quality?
Send the file through something that does not process it. Messaging apps resize and re-encode by default. Gallery platforms vary: some deliver the original, some deliver a web-optimised copy, and some make full resolution a paid option. The three-number check settles it in about three minutes: if the checksum of the downloaded file matches the checksum of the uploaded one, nothing was altered.
How to share 1000 photos at once?
Upload them in bulk to one event gallery and share a single link or QR code rather than sending files individually. Messaging apps and email cap attachment counts and sizes; galleries do not. On a face-recognition platform each guest sees only the photos they appear in, so nobody scrolls a thousand images to find eight. Check the per-event ceiling before a very large job: TurtlePic states a maximum of 30,000 photos in one event, and Kwikpic publishes no figure.
How to share event photos with attendees?
Put them in one gallery, share one link or QR code, and let face matching route each guest to their own photos. Our own step by step is in how to share event photos with guests. On TurtlePic a guest takes a selfie and receives the photos they appear in, with no app and no login. Check before you commit whether your platform requires guests to identify themselves, and on which plan anonymous viewing is included, because both platforms charge for it.
Does face recognition work from a photo?
Yes, that is the mechanism. The platform builds a match between the face in a guest’s selfie and the faces in the event photos, then returns only the matching images. We cover the mechanics in more depth in our guide to the best face recognition photo sharing apps. TurtlePic and Kwikpic each publish a face-match accuracy of 99.9% for their own systems. We do not rank them against each other, because no verifiable independent study exists that would support a comparison.
What is the most secure photo sharing app?
Security here is mostly about who can reach the gallery and what happens to the biometric data. Practical questions to ask any vendor, including us: is the gallery link public or passcode-gated, can downloads be switched off, is bulk download gated separately, what happens to a guest’s selfie after the match, and can a guest have their data deleted. A vendor that answers all five in writing is telling you more than any single feature claim. Our own answers are in how to securely share event photos with guests.
