Slack charges for every person who joins the conversation, with unlimited history and integrations from the first paid plan. GoFeed chat is an agency workspace feature, sitting next to the tasks and the calendar, and it does not open a new line on the invoice for each colleague who joins.
What each column compares
Comparing one chat against another is misleading, because what is really being compared is two different ideas about where the conversation belongs. Slack is a place you bring everything else into. An agency's chat inside GoFeed is the opposite: it sits attached to the work being discussed.
| Slack | GoFeed | |
|---|---|---|
| Team chat | Yes | Yes, in agency workspaces |
| Message history | Unlimited from the Pro plan | No day limit |
| Integration catalogue | Huge, unlimited from Pro | Not comparable |
| Conversation with the client | Channel shared between organisations | Client chat, in agency workspaces |
| Next to the tasks and the calendar | Through integrations | In the same tool |
| Calls and meetings | Huddles, group from Pro | Google Meet from the calendar |
| The price is calculated per | User per month | Workspace, not per seat |
One row in that table is worth reading twice: chat here is an agency workspace feature. A creator or a company workspace does not have it, which is why this article talks about agencies throughout. If your case is an in house marketing team, this is not the honest comparison for you.
What Slack costs today
Slack publishes its ladder in euros, per user per month, with no seat minimum.
| Plan | Per user per month | Billed annually | What it includes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | 0 € | 0 € | 90 days of history, up to 10 integrations, 1:1 messaging and meetings only |
| Pro | 8.25 € | 6.75 € | Unlimited history and integrations, external group messaging |
| Business+ | 18 € | 15 € | Up to 250 external organisations, group huddles, advanced AI features |
| Enterprise+ | Contact sales | Contact sales | Unlimited workspaces, enterprise search, legal holds |
Prices checked on 8 September 2026: Slack.
On the date of the check there was a promotion running, 50 % off for three months on both paid plans, so if you are comparing annual budgets, project the list price rather than the first three months. It is a small detail that moves a twelve month spreadsheet quite a lot.
The seat that only reads
Per seat arithmetic is simple, which is exactly why it stings. A team of three on the Pro plan costs about what a round of coffee costs; the same team at twelve pays twelve times, and among those twelve there are always three or four who log in once a week: the designer who collaborates two days a month, the founder who checks on Fridays, the account person who only reads. They cost what the person living inside it costs.
That model has a virtue worth acknowledging: it is transparent and free of surprises. You know exactly what person number thirteen costs before you hire them, and for a company that grows slowly and predictably that is worth a great deal. The problem is not the model in the abstract, it is how it fits the shape of an agency, where headcount rises and falls with projects and where half the team is not on the payroll.
The other moment the arithmetic breaks is guests. A three month intern, a freelancer for one campaign, an occasional collaborator: all of them are seats to add and remove, and in practice nobody removes them on time. That drag is a serious slice of the annual software bill of any small agency.
The model here is different: the price belongs to the workspace and the limits cover the whole of it, including VAT, the value added tax charged in Spain, with no lock in and no per post charge. Members are one of the five workspace quotas rather than a per head subscription, so adding somebody to the team does not open a new line next month. The current figures live on the pricing page, which reads the live catalogue.
Where the conversation lives
The interesting question is not what chat costs but where the conversation is when you need it. In an agency, almost everything discussed has an object behind it: a post going out on Thursday, a specific brand, a task, a file somebody has to review.
Inside the workspace, that conversation happens next to the object. Team chat sits beside the tasks, beside the calendar and beside the brands being discussed, and there is client chat as well for what does not fit in an approval comment. Both are agency workspace features. How it fits with tasks and files is on the tasks, chat and Drive page, and the detail of what each piece does is in the full feature piece.
The difference shows up most in the messages that today lead nowhere. In a general channel, "swap the photo on the third one" is a message somebody has to translate into an action in another tool, and that translation is where things get lost. When the conversation hangs off the piece or the task, the message already is the action, and a week later it is still where somebody will look for it, next to the post rather than at the bottom of a channel with two hundred messages stacked on top.
There is a pricing detail worth settling once the client is involved: portal accounts are not team seats. The person on the client side who logs in to approve, to ask and to download their files does not consume a place on your plan. In Slack, inviting the client goes through a channel shared between organisations, which works very well and is among the best things it does, but it leaves that conversation outside the tool where the client approves and where their posts go out.
What does not move into a chat inside the workspace
It is worth saying what you will not be able to do, because that is more useful than a list of advantages.
If your whole company lives in Slack, with finance, support and product in the same place, an agency chat does not replace that and does not try. If you have deploy alerts, incident notifications or internal forms pouring into channels, that plumbing is Slack's and has no equivalent here. And if the way you work depends on long threads and advanced search across years of conversation, you will miss both.
There is also a migration cost nobody prices in. Years of decisions live in a Slack archive, and moving the daily conversation elsewhere does not move that history with it. The workable approach is usually not a move at all but a split: the account conversation goes where the accounts are, and the archive stays where it is, on whatever plan keeps it readable.
What does move is the operational conversation about the accounts: the one that lives today in a channel per client, with pasted screenshots, links to a calendar sitting in another tab, and messages like "is this approved?" answered by looking in a third place. That is the one that gets cheaper and, above all, the one that stops getting lost.
Everything in this article happens in one place in GoFeed.
Try it freeThe whole basket, not just the chat line
An honest comparison does not pit a chat subscription against an entire product. What changes is the basket: if the team's chat, tasks and files were three per seat subscriptions and they move inside the workspace where you already run the content, what you compare is the sum of the three against a line you were paying anyway. If you only used the chat and used it heavily, the arithmetic comes out differently and moving is probably not worth it.
That same reasoning applied to the task manager is in the ClickUp comparison, and it is the other half of this decision: almost nobody moves the chat without moving the tasks.
What Slack does better
Four things, and the first is not up for debate.
The integration ecosystem. It is enormous, it has been growing for years, and it is the reason Slack became the nervous system of so many companies. Practically any tool you use has an official integration, and from the Pro plan there is no cap on how many. There is nothing remotely comparable here, and saying otherwise would be a lie.
Chat as a product. Threads, search, huddles, external messaging quantified per plan up to 250 organisations on Business+, and an assistant of its own on the upper plans with no separate add on. They have spent more than a decade polishing exactly this and it shows in every detail.
The clarity of its published limits. Ninety days of history, ten integrations, 250 external organisations: those are concrete numbers in the table itself, and in this market that is rarer than it should be.
The free plan, which is real and well bounded: 90 days of history, up to ten integrations, one to one messaging and meetings. For a team of two or three getting started it is hard to beat, and there is no reason to pay before you have to.
The reasonable conclusion: if Slack is your company's nervous system, stay. If Slack is where your agency talks about its clients' posts and you pay a seat for every person who drops in to look at them, that conversation has somewhere else it could live.