GoFeed vs Planable: client approvals without one more tool

What each one actually buys you

Planable does one very specific thing and does it with taste: it turns content review into something a client understands with no training at all. They see the piece as it will look once published, comment beside it, approve, done. It is a product with a point of view, and the point of view is not trying to be everything else.

That choice has an economic consequence worth facing directly: Planable adds to what you already pay. You still need somewhere to measure, somewhere to reply and somewhere to invoice, and the approval layer is one more subscription on top of those.

That last row looks identical in both columns and is not, and the confusion deserves its own paragraph further down, because the word "workspace" means different things in each product.

What Planable costs today

The tiers are public and the model is per workspace, with a cap on social pages and another on posts per month inside each workspace.

Prices checked on 6 September 2026: Planable.

Users are unlimited on all three plans, which is an excellent and uncommon decision in this category. Annual billing gives two months free. And there is an approval ladder that climbs with the plan: on Basic approval can be none or optional, Pro adds required approval, and chained multi level approval lives on Enterprise.

That is where the detail is worth reading slowly. A Planable workspace is four social pages on Basic and ten on Pro, so an agency with eight clients on four networks each does not buy one workspace: it buys several, or climbs plans until the page and post caps stop pinching. The price per workspace is honest and low; the number of workspaces is the variable you have to forecast.

The post cap per workspace per month deserves the same reading. Sixty posts a month on Basic is two a day spread across four pages, and that allowance runs out by itself the moment one brand runs stories or posts to three networks on the same day. It is a reasonable cap for a calm brand and a tight one for an agency with a busy calendar, and it is worth counting against your real volume from the last three months rather than the volume you wish you had.

One yes, and who gets to give it

An approval is not one more permission. It is a record of who said yes and when, and that distinction becomes very concrete the day a client insists they never saw a piece that went out.

Each client has one switch. With it on, a post waits for a single approval: somebody on your team from the app or the client from their portal, whichever comes first. There is no order and it is never both: the client does not wait for your team, and your team does not wait for the client. With it off, which is the default, the post is scheduled as soon as it is saved.

When the client is the one who answers, they sign into their portal with an account of their own, see exactly what is going to be published, and either approve the piece or send it back with a comment attached to it. A rejected post returns to the calendar carrying the reason, and each version keeps its own conversation, so the record of why something changed is not lost in an email thread.

For a client with the switch on, what never happens is a piece entering the publishing queue without a yes, and that is the difference between a shared calendar and an approval chain. How the switch is configured is in the content approvals guide.

Who can have approvals, and who cannot

This is worth stating before somebody signs up expecting something else. Approvals exist in agency workspaces and in in house team workspaces, and they do not exist in creator workspaces.

That is not a commercial trim, it is coherence. A creator workspace is one person publishing for their own brands: there is no team to review and no client to approve, and approving your own work is a form rather than a control. An in house workspace has a team, so every post waits for one teammate's approval, with no client on the other side, because in that model there is no third party. An agency workspace decides client by client, because it has clients with their own fiscal identity and a portal per client.

The portal is what lets the client give that yes, and it is an agency workspace feature. What the client sees when they sign in, what they can download and what they never get to see is on the client portal page.

What sits underneath the approval

An isolated approval layer has a structural problem: it approves a piece that then has to go out from somewhere else, be measured somewhere else and be invoiced in a third place. Every one of those hops is a point where information gets copied by hand.

Here the approval sits on top of the calendar that publishes, so an approved piece is not exported anywhere: it enters the queue and goes out on whichever networks that brand has connected, up to fourteen. The inbox in the same account collects what the post generates afterwards, treating messages, comments and reviews as three kinds of the same object, with a clock that marks a message overdue at 24 hours. Per network analytics are available to everyone, while the monthly PDF report that generates and sends itself is an agency workspace feature.

That chaining changes something no feature table shows: the number of places where somebody can get it wrong. A piece approved in one tool and published in another depends on somebody moving the right version, and in a month with forty pieces and three rounds of changes that dependency fails at least once. When approval and the publishing queue are the same thing, there is no version to move.

The price is per workspace rather than per seat, net of IVA, the value added tax charged in Spain, with no lock in and no per post charge. There are five quotas and only the DM automation contacts one is soft. The current figures live on the pricing page, which reads the live catalogue.

What Planable does better

Three things, and the first is the reason it exists.

The review experience. The faithful per network preview is more polished, the threads per version are better resolved, and the speed with which an outside guest gets in, looks and gives an opinion is hard to match. If approving is your only problem and the rest of your operation is solved, Planable is lighter and gets you there sooner.

Unlimited users on all three plans. There is no seat conversation at any tier, not even the cheapest, and that removes at the root the problem of inviting somebody on the client side purely to look at a piece. Here members are one of five workspace quotas, so the conversation does exist, even if it happens once a year rather than every time somebody joins.

The chained multi level approval on its Enterprise plan, which lets you order the steps to fit. If your process has three sign offs in a specific order and that order is part of the contract, Planable models it, whereas here one yes, from the team or the client, is enough rather than an arbitrary chain. Ordered sign offs are a real requirement in regulated work, and pretending one yes covers every process would be dishonest.

The honest comparison is not which tool approves better. Planable approves very well. The question is whether you want approving to be a separate tool with its own invoice and its own login, or the middle step of the tool where the calendar already lives. The rest of the options in this category, with their prices beside them, are in the Planable alternatives round up, and how the whole chain is assembled here is on the approvals page.