GoFeed vs Sprout Social: price per seat against price per workspace

Two products that are not chasing the same buyer

It helps to start with what this comparison is not. It is not "which one has more features", because Sprout Social has more and the last section says so without hedging. It is not "which one is cheaper" either, because a product costing five times as much can be a bargain if it solves a problem the other one never touches.

It is a comparison of billing units, which is what decides most of these purchases in practice. Sprout Social charges per seat per month. Here the charge is per workspace. Everything else follows from that one line.

What Sprout Social costs today

The tiers are published, all of them are per seat per month, and annual billing is the reference price on the page.

Prices checked on 6 September 2026: Sprout Social.

Essentials rises to 99 dollars per seat per month on monthly billing. And one column is worth reading twice: Essentials and Standard each include five social profiles. Five profiles is one brand on five networks, or two small brands. An agency leaves that allowance behind with its second client.

That is where these comparisons usually go wrong. The jump to a plan with unlimited profiles is not paid once: it is paid per seat on the team, every month. Moving from Standard to Professional to connect a sixth profile is 100 dollars more per person per month, so the price of one profile depends on how many people you employ, which is an unintuitive relationship and one worth calculating against your real headcount before the demo.

A team of five, counted twice

Seat arithmetic makes more sense with job titles. Take a small agency: one person who plans, one who edits, one who answers messages, one who owns the client relationships and one who invoices.

Under a per seat model, all five need a licence if all five have to get in. On Standard that is 995 dollars a month billed annually, and on Professional it is 1,495. The predictable reaction is to buy three licences and share one, which is exactly the behaviour that destroys any record of who approved what and who answered whom. The second predictable reaction is to leave the person who invoices outside, at which point the invoice goes out from somewhere else with different numbers on it.

There is a more expensive and very common case: the person who only looks. The client's marketing lead who wants to see this month's calendar, or the partner who reviews things once a fortnight. Under a per seat price, looking costs a full licence.

Here that case is not a licence but a portal account: a limited account created from the workspace, which sees that client's brands, approves, comments, asks and downloads, and sees nothing else. Client portals belong to agency workspaces, and that distinction between a team member and a person on the client side is what removes the price tag from the question "do we give them access?".

The cumulative effect shows best over twelve months. A seat bought in January for a three month project is still on the December renewal if nobody remembers to cancel it before the billing cut, and on an annual contract it is paid in full. An agency with ordinary turnover finds at year end that it has paid licences for people who were no longer there, and that money appears in no feature table. Added to the other subscriptions you need around it, the real sum is in the stack cost guide.

Putting both rates together changes the question

A feature comparison can be argued forever. Two rates side by side force a much more concrete answer: how many people are you paying for this month, and what does each of them get back for that money.

The two columns do not measure the same thing, and the left one is the one you multiply. It is a dollar price, per seat, billed annually, so the five people from the section above do not pay 199 dollars on Standard: they pay 995 a month, and 1,495 the day a sixth profile pushes them onto Professional. 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: adding somebody to the team does not move it, and client portal accounts consume no seat either.

What fits in neither column is what actually separates the two products. On Sprout Social's side, social listening and the report builder, which have no equivalent here and which earn the closing section of this piece. On ours, the client's approval from their own portal and the Spanish commercial block, quotes and invoices with your own numbering series and your own VAT, which no international suite solves.

What is counted per workspace, and what is not

A per workspace price does not mean a free for all, and saying so is part of an honest comparison. There are five quotas and all of them belong to the whole workspace: members, storage, connected social accounts, ad accounts and DM automation contacts. Brands are not one of them: every brand takes at least one connected account.

The first four are hard ceilings: when you reach one, you move up a plan. The fifth is the only soft one: nothing is blocked, the automation keeps sending, and the excess is billed per contact. A zero in any of them is a real "not included", and an unlimited quota exists too. How to read those five rows before signing is in the seats and quotas guide.

What is structural and does not move with the catalogue: a monthly price per workspace, VAT included, with no lock in and no per post charge. The current figures live on the pricing page, which reads them from the live catalogue. The trial runs fourteen days, card required and nothing charged until day 15, with one brand, one connected account and a ceiling of ten posts that does not reset.

Where this product does not reach

A comparison that only looks at price is propaganda. These are the three things Sprout Social does that do not exist here, stated without decoration.

There is no social listening. No monitoring of mentions outside your own accounts, no keyword tracking across a network, no analysis of what your competitors publish. What exists is the inbox of what reaches your own profiles: messages, comments and reviews, with a clock that marks a message overdue at 24 hours, which is the window Meta itself imposes.

There are no configurable approval workflows. There is one approval, switched on client by client: your team approves from the app or the client from their portal, and the first yes is enough. It covers the normal agency case and it does not cover a process with three sign offs in a specific order. That is a decision rather than an oversight: one yes is explained to a client in one sentence and a configurable chain takes a meeting, but if your process needs that chain, you will not build it here.

Analytics cover six networks, not fourteen: Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, LinkedIn and Google Business. Network coverage for publishing is not equivalent either, because Sprout Social offers coverage you will not find here. If your media plan depends on one specific network, that question is answered by reading the list, and answered before any other. The same argument against the other large per seat product is in the Hootsuite comparison.

What Sprout Social does better

Four things, and they are what justify its price for the buyer who needs them.

Social listening. It is a product inside the product, and it is the difference between knowing what people reply to you and knowing what is said about you when nobody tags you. There is no equivalent to offer here, and if that is your central need the conversation ends on this line.

Custom reports. Configurable templates, exports a committee understands and dashboards built to present upwards inside a large company. The monthly report here is a PDF that generates and sends itself, it is useful, and it is an agency workspace feature, but it is not a report builder.

Granular permissions and service level agreements. An organisation of five hundred people needs to decide who can publish on which brand under which prior approval, and it needs a support contract with written response times. That is Sprout Social's ground and it is well worked, with years of enterprise deployments behind it and an implementation team that has seen your edge case before. A younger product does not compete on that ground and saying otherwise would be silly.

Network coverage, already mentioned, which for some media plans is simply the purchase criterion and admits no nuance.

The conclusion is that the choice is made before the feature comparison starts. If you are a large brand with a dedicated team, a departmental budget and a need to listen to the market, Sprout Social is built for you and its price is coherent with that buyer. If you are an agency of three to ten people where the bottleneck is approving, replying and invoicing, and where half the staff open the tool for an hour a week, paying per seat is paying for empty chairs. How the whole chain is assembled, from the piece to the publish button, is on the calendar and publishing page.