Social scheduling: compare the limits, not just the headline
Three-company demonstration · 13 October 2026 · Sebastian
For a small software business comparing Buffer, Publer and Metricool. Independently prepared; not commissioned client work. This is a dated baseline, not a claim that these features changed today.
The short version
The free plans count different things: Buffer and Publer advertise a ten-post queue per channel/account, while Metricool advertises twenty scheduled posts per month for one brand.[1][2][3] Interpretation: A comparison that simply ranks “10 versus 20” would mislead buyers. Describe the workflow and the time period before comparing the limits.
What the pages actually say
| Question | Buffer | Publer | Metricool |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free-plan scope | Up to three channels.[1] | Three social accounts, excluding X.[2] | One brand; LinkedIn and Twitter excluded.[3] |
| Scheduling limit | Ten scheduled posts per channel, refillable.[1] | Ten scheduled posts per account; a slot opens when a scheduled post is published or deleted.[2] | Up to twenty scheduled posts per month.[3] |
| Another useful free-plan limit | One user account.[1] | Twenty-five saved drafts and twenty-four-hour post history.[2] | Five competitor profiles and thirty days of analytics.[3] |
| Collaboration packaging | Team advertises unlimited team members and approval workflows.[1] | The pricing calculator separately counts additional members; the owner is already included.[2] | Advanced lists team/client management, roles and post approval.[3] |
| Integration packaging | Free advertises API access, one API key and 3,000 requests per month.[1] | Business lists API and MCP access.[2] | Free lists Metricool MCP; Advanced lists Metricool API (Zapier, Make).[3] |
Three implications to test
1. Make the unit visible. Metricool defines a brand as a business, brand or customer, with one profile per social network or ad platform under it.[3] Interpretation: A brand is not interchangeable with a single channel. Ask customers how many businesses and profiles they manage before showing a comparison price.
2. Separate solo use from approval workflows. Buffer places approval workflows in Team, while Metricool lists post approval in Advanced.[1][3] Interpretation: Build separate comparisons for a solo owner and an owner-plus-reviewer workflow. An entry-price comparison alone does not answer the agency's buying question.
3. Do not treat every integration label as the same product. The pages place API/MCP capabilities in different tiers, and Metricool separately lists MCP and API.[1][2][3] Interpretation: Before promising a compatible automation, check the actual endpoints, authentication and limits. These pricing-page observations do not establish feature parity.
Useful next checks
- Price one identical configuration: one business, three named social profiles, two users and an approval step, using the same currency and billing period.
- Test one required integration operation rather than infer compatibility from its name.
- Capture another dated baseline before reporting a change; label an inaccessible page as a coverage gap, not “no change.”
Scope and evidence
Public pricing pages were retrieved on 13 October 2026. No login, checkout, paid plan or integration was tested. Paid totals are not compared because the extracted pages mix selectors, billing periods and currencies. Full source snapshots and a citation ledger are retained in evidence/2026-10-13/.
This sample now matches the proposed pilot's three-company scope. It demonstrates research delivery, not customer demand or revenue.
Sources
[1] https://buffer.com/pricing — Buffer pricing [2] https://publer.com/plans — Publer pricing [3] https://metricool.com/pricing — Metricool pricing