How to Migrate From Synthesia to Colossyan
Both Synthesia and Colossyan built their platforms for corporate learning and training video, and on paper they look interchangeable. They're not. The differences that matter are specific enough that understanding them changes whether a migration makes sense for your use case.
The creators and L&D teams who move from Synthesia to Colossyan are typically chasing one or both of two things: interactive branching scenarios that let learners make choices within the video, or dissatisfaction with the specific subset of Synthesia avatars that fit their audience and a desire to try a different library. Colossyan built branching scenario support earlier than most competitors, and for training content where a learner's choices should affect what they see next, that's a functional difference, not just a UI preference.
What's actually different
The platforms are more similar than different on core video creation, but the specifics matter for learning-focused use cases.
| Feature | Synthesia | Colossyan |
|---|---|---|
| Stock avatars | 230+ | 150+ |
| Custom avatar | Enterprise/add-on | Available on paid plans |
| Interactive branching | Limited / via integration | Native branching scenarios |
| SSML voice controls | Strong | Moderate |
| Languages | 140+ | 70+ |
| Scene templates | Strong | Good |
| Learning Path delivery | Yes | Yes |
| Pricing | From ~$22/month | Comparable mid-market pricing |
| Team workspace | Mature | Good for SMB |
The branching scenario feature in Colossyan works differently from Synthesia's approach. In Colossyan, you can build a video where learners reach a decision point and click one of two or three options, and the video branches to a different segment based on their choice. This is native to the platform, not a bolted-on integration. For compliance training, soft-skills scenarios, or any content where showing the consequence of a choice is the pedagogical goal, this capability changes what you can build.
Synthesia does have some interactivity features, but they've historically been either more limited or requiring additional integration work. If your L&D team has been trying to build branching scenarios in Synthesia and hitting friction, that friction has a structural cause.
The avatar library difference is more subjective. Colossyan has fewer total avatars than Synthesia but some users find the selection better matched to their specific audience, particularly for European corporate contexts. The only way to know if this applies to you is to browse both libraries against your audience.
Mapping your existing workflow
Avatars: No direct transfer. Audit Colossyan's library with your specific diversity and cultural representation requirements in mind. Map your most-used Synthesia avatars to the best available Colossyan equivalents. For branded custom avatars, you'll need to create a new custom avatar in Colossyan.
Scripts: Plain text transfers directly. Your SSML markup from Synthesia will need to be reviewed and potentially rewritten, since Colossyan's SSML support doesn't match Synthesia's depth. Test your most SSML-dependent scripts carefully.
Templates and layouts: You'll rebuild your layouts in Colossyan's editor. The concept is the same, the specific UI is different. Standard corporate training layouts like presenter-on-left, title-card openers, and lower-third text are all available. Building a template library in Colossyan before you start recreating individual videos saves time.
Branching scenarios: If you were building scenarios in Synthesia that had to rely on chapter linking or LMS-level branching rather than in-video branching, you can now build those natively in Colossyan. This is the capability you're gaining. Plan your existing scenario content against the branching builder before you start rebuilding, since the structure of a branching video is different from a linear one.
Voice selection: Colossyan has a solid voice library but covers fewer languages than Synthesia. If you're producing content in a language that's less common, verify Colossyan's support before you migrate any content in that language.
The actual migration steps
1. Inventory your Synthesia library by content type Separate your existing videos into: linear training, scenario-based training, compliance modules, product explainers, and any other categories you use. The linear content transfers more mechanically; the scenario content is where Colossyan may offer real structural improvement.
2. Export from Synthesia Download MP4 versions and export script text for each video you want to migrate or reference. Document the avatar, voice, and layout used.
3. Test Colossyan's branching builder on a real scenario Before you commit to the migration, take one existing scenario-based module and rebuild it in Colossyan with actual branching. This is the feature that differentiates the platforms. If the builder serves your actual content type well, the migration makes sense. If you find it limiting for your specific scenarios, that's important information.
4. Create your brand kit and base templates Set up brand colors, fonts, and logos in Colossyan first. Build your two or three most-used layout templates. Every video you create will be consistent from the start.
5. Map and test your voice selections For each language you use, find your preferred Colossyan voice and run a one-minute script test. Note any pronunciation issues with names, technical terms, or industry jargon in your content domain. Add custom pronunciations where the platform allows it.
6. Rebuild priority content Start with the content your learners access most frequently. Get those videos rebuilt, reviewed, and published in Colossyan before you migrate anything else. This validates the workflow and gives your stakeholders a real production example to approve.
7. Build branching scenarios from scratch Don't try to directly convert linear Synthesia videos into branching Colossyan ones. Branching scenarios need to be designed for branching from the beginning. Use the migration as an opportunity to redesign your scenario content properly.
Gotchas you'll hit
SSML depth is lower. Synthesia has more granular SSML voice controls than Colossyan. If your scripts use prosody tags for pacing on technical content, you'll need to review and possibly simplify those. The voice output may sound slightly different even with equivalent words.
Fewer languages. Colossyan covers 70+ languages. If Synthesia's 140+ language coverage is important for your distribution, check Colossyan's specific language list carefully before migrating multilingual content.
Branching has a design overhead. Building branching scenarios properly requires more planning than linear video. You'll need a storyboard or decision tree before you open the branching builder. Teams new to branching underestimate this planning step consistently.
Custom avatar creation takes time. Submit the request early if a branded face is part of your migration plan.
Platform maturity differences. Synthesia has been around longer and some workflows, especially around large enterprise deployments and LMS integrations, are more polished. Test your specific LMS integration with Colossyan before you commit.
When NOT to switch
Don't migrate to Colossyan if SSML precision is essential for your voice quality, if you need coverage of languages beyond Colossyan's 70+, or if you're in an enterprise environment where Synthesia's compliance certifications and IT vetting have already been completed. Also stay if you have a large library of functioning linear training videos that don't need branching, and the rebuild cost doesn't justify the change.
Colossyan earns the switch when interactive branching scenarios are the gap in your current training program, when your team wants to explore a different avatar aesthetic, or when you're building a new L&D library from scratch and want branching capabilities built in from the start rather than integrated later. For that specific use case, the migration is worth the setup investment. The Synthesia profile covers its current SSML and enterprise feature set in detail if you want a direct comparison before deciding.