Zeta 3.5 keeps HDR and Dolby Vision intact, remuxes HEVC instead of re-encoding it, and never uploads your file. Haze asks you to pick the right engine for HDR, and describes itself as a hosted optimizer. On the only thing that matters — the video that reaches TikTok — Zilem is the better tool.
We make Zilem Method, so read this with that in mind. Everything said here about Haze Method comes from its own published pages, checked on 23 October 2026, which is also why the comparison below can be checked line by line instead of taken on trust.
| Zilem Method | Haze Method | |
|---|---|---|
| Where processing happens | On your device for Zeta 3.0 and 3.5. Server-side only for Zeta 2.0. | Described as a hosted optimizer; the file is handled by the service. |
| HDR & Dolby Vision | Core of Zeta 3.5 — metadata preserved, no tone-map step. | Haze Max, a separate engine you select for HDR files. |
| Codec handling | HEVC / H.265 in, MP4 out, remuxed — media samples untouched. | H.265 to H.264 conversion listed as optional re-encode. |
| Ceiling | 4K at 120fps, 1 GB per file, every plan including free. | 4K at 120fps, 1 GB per file, every signed-in plan. |
| Engines | Zeta 2.0 (server), Zeta 3.0 (local), Zeta 3.5 (local, HDR) | Haze Lite (720p 60fps), Haze Classic, Haze Max (HDR) |
| Free plan | 30 credits every Monday | 30 credits every Monday |
| Paid plans | Plus $5/mo (100 credits a week), Premium $10/mo | Plus $5/mo and Premium $10/mo, or $12.50 and $25 every 3 months, 3-day trial, 6-month and yearly options |
| Sign-in | Discord, Google or Telegram | Google, Discord or Telegram |
| Posting to TikTok | Described as upload from the site | TikTok's official posting API, up to 5 accounts on Premium |
| Chrome extension | None | Yes, for uploads on tiktok.com |
| Checking the result | Analyzer, a dashboard that keeps a verified-in-the-wild record, a side-by-side of what TikTok served, and a visibility check that compares views per hour with the same account's recent videos | Haze Check: resolution, frame rate, bitrate per device, HDR and For You flag |
| Getting an answer | Ask Zilem on every page, /myid in the Discord bot for your ID and plan, and email support |
Ask Haze assistant |
Haze Method details taken from tikhaze.com on 23 October 2026. Its own comparison page states that Zilem's site "does not mention HDR" — that page was checked against our site on 20 October, before this page and the Zeta 3.5 launch copy existed.
This is the part that does not show up in a feature table. Zeta 3.0 and Zeta 3.5 are JavaScript engines: the patcher opens your file in the tab, rewrites the container headers, and hands back a blob you save. Nothing is posted to a server, because there is no server step to post to.
Three consequences follow, and they are practical rather than philosophical:
We are not claiming Haze mishandles files. We are saying that our default path has no file to mishandle, and that is a property you can verify by opening the network tab while it runs.
Most tools treat HDR as an edge case: a separate mode, a warning, an upsell. Zeta 3.5 was designed the other way round — high dynamic range is what it exists for, and SDR is the easy case it also happens to handle.
In practice that means an iPhone HDR export or a Dolby Vision grade goes in and comes out still carrying its colour metadata. The failure mode on a non-HDR-aware pipeline is the one to watch for: the file is flattened to standard dynamic range somewhere in the middle, highlights clip, and the result looks fine on a laptop and washed out on a phone that can actually display it. If you have ever posted HDR footage and thought it looked flatter than the file you exported, that is usually the cause.
Haze addresses this with Haze Max, an engine you pick when the optimizer notices an HDR file. That is a reasonable design. The difference is that on Zilem there is no wrong engine to pick for HDR — 3.5 is the HDR engine, and 3.0 is the standard one.
"No re-encode" gets used loosely, so here is the specific claim. When Zeta takes an HEVC or H.265 file, it does not decode the video and encode it again. It rewrites the container: the ftyp brand, the moov atom, the chunk offsets, the timecode track. The encoded video samples are copied byte for byte, and after patching the tool hashes the media payload before and after to prove it.
That is why the output is an MP4 with the original H.265 stream inside it, and why quality is identical rather than "visually similar". A re-encode is not a neutral operation — the second encoder makes its own decisions about what to throw away.
The Haze comparison page states, accurately as of 20 October 2026, that Zilem's site does not mention HDR. That was true: the engine supported it, the marketing copy did not say so, and the homepage never used the word. A competitor reading our site had no way to know.
The fix is not a rebuttal, it is this page and the launch copy around Zeta 3.5. When a comparison is built from what a site fails to publish, publishing is the answer.
Haze lists posting through TikTok's official API, a Chrome extension and Google or Telegram sign-in. All three are conveniences around the file. Measured against the thing this category exists to do — get a high-quality file through TikTok without degrading it — none of them changes the output, and two of them actively work against the reason you are here:
Sort the two tools by what happens to your video and the ordering is not close. Zeta 3.5 keeps HDR and Dolby Vision intact, remuxes HEVC instead of re-encoding it, runs on your machine so a 1 GB file is practical, and hands you a checksum proving the media bytes never changed. That is the whole job.
Three claims, each one testable rather than asserted:
Then check the result rather than trusting either vendor. The Analyzer reads back the resolution, frame rate and bitrate TikTok actually serves, and your dashboard keeps the verified-in-the-wild record with a side-by-side. Zilem is the only side of this comparison that gives you the evidence.
Do not take the table above as evidence. Run the same source file through both tools, post both results, then compare what TikTok actually serves — resolution, frame rate, bitrate — for each one. The Analyzer reads those numbers off the published video, and your dashboard keeps the verified-in-the-wild record alongside a side-by-side of the two outputs, so the comparison is a screenshot rather than an opinion.
If the difference turns out to be in Haze's favour on your footage, that is worth knowing too. The point of a patcher is the file that comes out of it.
Verdict
Haze's differentiators are posting, a browser extension and sign-in options. Useful, but they are logistics: they decide how a file travels, not what survives the trip. The comparison that decides your upload is this one:
Same ceiling, same limits, same price. One of the two is engineered around the file.
Where the processing happens. Zeta 3.0 and Zeta 3.5 run inside your browser, so the video file is never uploaded to Zilem. Only Zeta 2.0, the older compatibility path, uses Zilem's servers. Haze Method describes its workflow around a hosted optimizer plus posting through TikTok's API.
Yes. Zeta 3.5 was built as an HDR engine: HDR and Dolby Vision files are carried through with their metadata intact rather than tone-mapped down to standard dynamic range first.
No. Zeta 3.0 and 3.5 change the container and the metadata, not the picture. HEVC and H.265 files are wrapped into MP4 while the encoded video samples are copied unchanged.
Yes. Both give 30 credits a week free and 100 a week on Plus, at $5 and $10 on both sides; Haze's newer $4.99 and $9.99 listings apply to new subscribers only. Zilem's difference is architectural, not financial, so switching cost is not a reason to stay or leave.
Yes. Run the same source file through each tool, post both, then paste the TikTok links into the Zilem Analyzer to see the resolution, frame rate and bitrate TikTok actually serves. The dashboard also keeps a side-by-side of the two results.
Zilem 3.5, if the priority is the file that reaches TikTok. It is the only one of the two with HDR and Dolby Vision built into the engine rather than offered as a mode you select, the only one that remuxes HEVC instead of converting it, and the only one that keeps the file on your device. Haze's advantages are posting convenience and a browser extension — useful, but outside the question of video quality.