GoFeed vs Agorapulse: one account for the inbox and the reports

The inbox as a product, not as a tab

There are two ways to build a social media tool. One starts from the calendar and adds an inbox because it has to. The other starts from the inbox, because its buyer is a team that spends the day replying. Agorapulse is clearly the second, and you notice it the moment you open both.

This comparison is not about which inbox has more buttons, because Agorapulse wins that count and the last section says so. It is about two duller and more decisive things: which kinds of message arrive, and how many subscriptions it takes for the monthly report to come out on its own.

What Agorapulse costs today

The tiers are public, all of them include ten social profiles, and the price is per user per month. Additional profiles are bought separately.

Prices checked on 6 September 2026: Agorapulse.

The page itself states that an additional profile costs between 10 and 15 dollars a month. That is the sum to do before signing, because the price grows from two directions at once: with every person who joins and with every profile you connect. An agency with four people and twenty profiles does not pay four times the plan: it pays four times the plan plus ten extra profiles.

There is a second reading of that ten profile allowance worth doing with your own client list open. Ten profiles is two brands running five networks each, or five brands running two. An agency signing its sixth client crosses the line without noticing, because nobody counts profiles on the day a contract is signed, and the extra profile charge arrives on the following invoice as a surprise rather than as a decision.

The per seat model makes sense when each person lives inside the inbox for eight hours, which is precisely Agorapulse's buyer. It starts to hurt when two of those four people log in for ten minutes a day. The same argument taken to its most expensive extreme is in the Sprout Social comparison.

What grows with headcount and what grows with the work

Putting both rates together turns a feature argument into a staffing question: which part of the invoice goes up because there is more work, and which part goes up only because there are more people doing it.

The two columns do not measure the same thing and both need reading carefully. The left one is the monthly billing price, in dollars, per user, and all three tiers carry the same ten profiles: the eleventh profile is bought separately, between 10 and 15 dollars a month, and on annual billing those three figures drop to 79, 119 and 149. The right one is what the whole workspace costs, in euros and including VAT, the value added tax charged in Spain, with no charge per seat and none per post.

That is where the difference that matters comes from. Because the profile allowance is fixed on every tier, the only thing that moves you up a tier is the feature list, and the only thing that multiplies the figure is people: the invoice follows headcount rather than the work. Adding the person who answers on Saturdays costs a whole subscription there and uses the member quota here, and client portal accounts consume no seat at all.

What fits in neither column is the usual pair. On Agorapulse's side, the depth of its inbox and the moderation of ad comments, which close this article. On ours, the Google Business review as a first class kind of inbox item, the client's approval from their portal, and the Spanish commercial block.

Three kinds of thing in one thread list

The inbox here does not treat private messages and comments as different worlds: they are two kinds of the same object, and it adds a third that almost no scheduling tool models at all, the review.

That matters because Google Business does not send private messages: it sends reviews. A local business that connects its listing receives ratings with a star and a body of text, and in most tools those either do not arrive or arrive disguised as something else. Here they arrive as what they are, in the same thread list as an Instagram DM or a Facebook comment, and they are answered from the same place. For a franchise with twelve listings, that unification is the difference between one routine and two.

And it is not only convenience. A review has different consequences from a comment: it shows up in search, it stays there for years, and the business answers it in public knowing the reply gets read more often than the review does. When that object lives in a separate tab somebody opens on Tuesdays, it gets answered late or not at all. When it lands in the same queue as everything else, under the same warning, it enters the team's daily routine without anybody having to remember it.

One detail is worth knowing before you promise it to a client: outbound attachments work on Instagram, Facebook, Telegram and WhatsApp, and on every other network the reply goes out as text. That is not a limitation of the tool, it is what each API allows, but the client does not distinguish between those two things and it belongs in the kickoff meeting. How the queue is organised when it arrives from fourteen places at once is in the social media inbox guide.

The 24 hour clock

There is a clock on top of the inbox, and nobody invented it. A message is marked overdue at 24 hours because that is the window Meta itself imposes for replying outside a template: past that point the conversation no longer accepts a free reply and you have to fall back on a pre approved message, at which point the practical conversation is over.

So the warning is not a contractual service level agreement and does not pretend to be one. It is an alert that the message is about to stop being answerable, which is far more useful information than an internal two hour target nobody hits on a Friday.

The practical consequence is that the conversations you have to rescue are always the same ones: those that arrived on Friday afternoon. A team that checks the inbox on Monday morning is late to everything from the weekend, and that is a shift decision rather than a tool decision. What the tool can do is show you Monday's queue ordered by what is about to expire, instead of by what is most recent, which is the order that buries old conversations.

The monthly report, and who gets it

Two things that usually travel together on pricing pages need separating here, because they are not the same.

Per network analytics are available to everyone, in every kind of workspace. They cover six networks: Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, LinkedIn and Google Business. Around thirty metrics are documented with their aggregation rule printed next to each one, and those rules are the difference between a report and a pretty number. The first of them: reach cannot be summed across days, because somebody who saw you on Monday and on Tuesday is one person in the real total and two if you add the days up.

The monthly PDF report that generates and sends itself is a separate thing, and it is an agency workspace feature. That is coherent: a report that goes out under your name and reaches a third party only exists when there is a third party. What it contains and how often it is sent is in the social media reporting guide.

The price is per workspace rather than per seat, including VAT, with no lock in and no per post charge. There are five workspace quotas and only the DM automation contacts one is soft: nothing is blocked at the limit and the excess is billed per contact. The current figures live on the pricing page, which reads the live catalogue, which is why they are not printed here. What is structural and does not change: adding a teammate uses the member quota rather than opening a new subscription, so giving access to whoever answers on Saturdays does not move the invoice.

What Agorapulse does better

Three things, and the first is its reason for existing.

The inbox, polished for years. Labels, assignment of conversations to named people, saved replies, filters by state and a history per correspondent that tells you whether this person already wrote to you last month. If your team lives inside the inbox eight hours a day, that depth is not a luxury: it is the tool. The inbox here is simpler and built to be worked through two or three times a day rather than inhabited.

Ad comment moderation. Comments hanging off a paid campaign are a separate channel, with their own volume and their own toxicity, and Agorapulse treats them as such. There is no such mode here, and for an account spending heavily on Meta that is a real difference rather than a nuance.

The listening and the custom reports on its higher plans, with configurable templates and exports a large client expects to find. It is a mature product in a category where maturity shows.

The reasonable reading is one about team shape. If replying is your main job and the calendar is secondary, Agorapulse is built for you and its inbox proves it. If replying is one of five things you do, and the other four are planning, getting client sign off, measuring and invoicing, then paying a subscription per person purely for the inbox stops making sense. How the one here works, with its three item kinds and its clock, is on the inbox page.