Content Marketing
Contently
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Contently, Inc. · contently.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Contently at a glance
- Vendor
- Contently, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Contently 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Contently is an enterprise content platform for regulated industries, sold as a pre-funded content bank staffed from a network of 10,000+ creators. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Contently is an enterprise content platform for regulated industries, sold as a pre-funded content bank staffed from a network of 10,000+ creators. Scores are highest for collaboration and approval: inline comments with a searchable resolution log, per-version comments, e-signed timestamped approvals, and workflow steps carrying a contributor, due date and price, with the audit trail exposed through the API. Editorial planning and distribution and integrations follow, on one cross-channel capacity calendar and 32+ native connectors. Weakest is content model and reuse: localisation evidence is Spanish, Italian and UK English support plus a 252-article case study, and we found no public information on a configurable content model, reusable components or documented export. Sovereignty scores 2-3 — the contracting entity is Contently, Inc. of New York, the pages state \"EU and US data residency\", and the subprocessor list is available only by emailing security. AI and content rights credits the opt-in, no-base-model-training posture while model providers, prompt processing and output ownership remain publicly unanswered. No criterion shows a meaningful split among the judges.
Speaks for it
- E-signed, timestamped approvals with the full audit trail exposed through the API
- One cross-channel calendar with a live capacity heatmap and brief intake auto-routed to pod, reviewer and jurisdiction
- 32+ native connectors across CMS, CRM, marketing automation, social and analytics, plus a documented REST and GraphQL API
- AI is opt-in only under a signed agreement, base models are not trained on customer content, and prompts are not aggregated across tenants
- Custom workflow steps each carry a contributor, due date and price, with IP-assignment confirmation captured before publish
Held against it
- We found no public information on a configurable content model, reusable components or a documented export of the repository
- Named language support is Spanish, Italian and UK English, "with more languages to come"
- The subprocessor list is available only by emailing security@contently.com, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement
- We found no public information on which model providers run AI Studio, where prompts are processed, or who owns generated output
- No public prices appear on any captured page; entry points are a 30-minute strategy call, a free sample article and an AI Studio walkthrough
Best for
- You run compliance-heavy content in financial services, healthcare or insurance and need legal sign-off with an auditable approval trail
- You want the vendor to hire, manage and pay contractors on one invoice rather than run your own freelance pool
- You plan from one editorial calendar across teams and distribute to CMS, social, CRM and email
- You want AI strictly opt-in, with no base-model training on your content and a human editor gating drafts
Avoid if
- You need languages beyond Spanish, Italian and UK English today
- Your architecture requires a configurable content model, reusable components and a documented export path
- Your procurement requires a published subprocessor list and a readable data processing agreement before signature
- You must compute an annual cost from public prices before talking to sales
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Planning, editorial calendar & briefs | 3.5 of 5 |
| Creation, review & approval | 3.5 of 5 |
| Structured content, localisation & export | 1.5 of 5 |
| Publishing, distribution & integrations | 3.5 of 5 |
| AI assistance & content rights | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
Planning, editorial calendar & briefs
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Turning a content strategy into scheduled work: topics and campaigns, an editorial calendar across channels, briefs that carry the goal, audience and keywords to the writer, and a view of what is due, late or missing.
0 — No planning features; content is created as standalone entries with no calendar, status or owner.
3 — A shared calendar with publish dates and simple statuses, but no briefs, no campaigns or topics to group work under, and no notion of who owns a piece.
5 — An editorial calendar across channels with owners, due dates and custom statuses, briefs attached to each piece, and content grouped by campaign or topic cluster.
8 — Strategy is connected to the plan: topics or personas defined once and assigned to pieces, configurable workflows per content type, workload and deadline views per person, and recurring formats scheduled as series.
10 — The plan is accountable: every published piece traces back to its brief, topic and campaign, gaps in coverage per topic or funnel stage are reported, and plan-versus-published is visible over time without a spreadsheet.
The Head of Content
The cross-channel calendar with a live capacity heatmap, campaign centers with tagging that rolls up to ROI, and brief intake auto-routed to pod, reviewer and jurisdiction is how a quarter actually gets committed, and personas from interview data tie strategy to the plan. Custom workflow steps with named contributors and due dates give ownership, and the 94% on-target figure implies deadline tracking. We found no public information on recurring formats scheduled as series or coverage-gap reporting per topic, so it stops short of the top. 4 5 7 8 9
The SME Marketer
Strategy is genuinely connected to the plan: personas from interview data and ranked story ideas feed one cross-channel calendar with a live capacity heatmap, campaign centers with cross-line-of-business tagging, and brief intake auto-routed by pod, reviewer and jurisdiction. Customizable workflows carry a contributor and due date per step, and requests arrive as structured briefs I can accept or reject. We found no public information on recurring formats scheduled as series or plan-versus-published reporting over time. 4 5 7 8 9
The Localisation Lead
One cross-channel calendar with a live capacity heatmap, campaign centres with cross-line-of-business tagging that rolls up to ROI, brief intake auto-routed to pod, reviewer and jurisdiction, personas built from real interview data, and workflow steps that carry a named contributor, due date and price. That genuinely connects strategy to the plan. We found no public information on recurring formats scheduled as series or a plan-versus-published view over time. 4 5 7 9
The Web Engineer
Strategy is wired into the plan, which is what I want to see: personas built from interview data, story ideas ranked by reader signal, campaign centers with cross-line-of-business tagging, one cross-channel calendar with a live capacity heatmap, and brief intake that routes to pod, reviewer and jurisdiction. Custom workflow steps can carry a contributor, due date and price; I found no public information on recurring formats scheduled as series or a plan-versus-published view over time. 4 5 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
The planning pages show one cross-channel calendar with a live capacity heatmap, campaign centers with tagging that rolls up to ROI, brief intake that auto-routes to pod, reviewer and jurisdiction, personas built from interview data, and custom workflow steps that carry a contributor and a due date. I found no public information on recurring formats scheduled as series or on reporting of coverage gaps per topic over time, which keeps strategy-to-piece traceability short of fully accountable. 4 5 7 9
The Skeptic
The planning pages show a cross-channel capacity calendar with a live heatmap, campaign centers with cross-line-of-business tagging, brief intake routed to pod, reviewer and jurisdiction, personas built from interview data, and workflow steps that carry an assigned contributor, due date and price. We found no public information on personas assigned to individual pieces, a per-person deadline view, recurring formats scheduled as series, or plan-versus-published reporting over time. Six: the strategy-to-plan link is written down, the accountability layer is not. 4 5 7 8
Creation, review & approval
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Writing and reviewing content together: editing with comments and suggestions, roles and permissions for internal and external contributors, and an approval trail that records who released which version.
0 — Single-user editing with no comments, no roles beyond admin, and no record of changes.
3 — Comments and a version history exist, but every user can publish, external writers need a full seat, and approval is a status anyone can set.
5 — Roles that separate writing from publishing, inline comments and suggested edits, a version history with restore, and guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces.
8 — Configurable multi-step approval per content type or market, mandatory reviewers (legal, product, brand), scheduled publishing that waits for approval, and an audit log of every edit, approval and publish with user and timestamp.
10 — Approval is evidence: the exact version each approver released is preserved and exportable, permissions reach down to field and locale level, and the audit trail is retained for a stated period and available after the contract ends.
The Head of Content
Inline comments with resolved threads logged in a searchable database, redlining like Word or Google Docs, e-signed timestamped approvals, and configurable multi-step workflows with legal as a quick sign-off because claim rules were attached at the brief — that is the approval trail I answer for, and it is exposed through the API. We found no public information on roles separating writing from publishing, freelancer access scoped to assigned pieces, or a stated retention period for the audit log. 4 6 7 9 10 12
The SME Marketer
Review basics are covered with inline comments and mentions, a searchable log of resolved comments, version control showing comments per version and Word-style redlining, and the approval side is strong: custom multi-step workflows, e-signed timestamped approvals, legal as a mandatory quick sign-off, and the audit trail exposed through the API. We found no public information on roles that separate writing from publishing, guest access limited to assigned pieces, or scheduled publishing that waits for approval. 4 6 7 9 10
The Localisation Lead
Inline comments with mentions and a searchable resolution log, redlining in the style of Word, version control showing comments per version, custom-named workflow steps, e-signed timestamped multimedia approvals, and a compliance flow where legal gives quick sign-off — with the audit trail exposed through the API, and external writers handled through the managed talent network rather than seats. We found no public information on scheduled publishing that waits for approval or on permissions reaching field and locale level. 4 6 7 9 12
The Web Engineer
Inline comments with mentions that resolve into a searchable activity log and version control showing comments per version, custom-named workflow steps per project type, e-signed timestamped multimedia approvals, and a human managing editor gating every publish with compliance routed upstream. The audit trail is stated as fully exposed through REST, GraphQL and webhooks; I found no public information on scheduled publishing that waits for approval or on permissions below the role level. 6 7 9 10 12
The Data Protection Officer
Collaborative editing with inline comments and redlining, mentions and a searchable log of resolved comments, version control showing comments per version, custom multi-step workflows where every step can carry a contributor, due date and price, e-signed and timestamped approvals with automated routes and legal as a quick sign-off, and an approve endpoint with the full audit trail exposed through the API. I found no public information on scheduled publishing that waits for approval, on permissions at field or locale level, or on retention of the approval trail after a contract ends. 4 6 7 9 10 12
The Skeptic
Redlining akin to Word or Google Docs, mentions in inline comments, resolved comments logged in a searchable database, per-version comment display, freely editable multi-step workflows with contributor, due date and price per step, legal as a routing stop, and e-signed timestamped approvals with the audit trail exposed through the API — concrete, dated evidence rather than slogans. We found no public information on roles separating writing from publishing, on scheduled publishing that waits for approval, or on how long the approval record is retained after a contract ends. Seven, because the approval record is evidenced but the permission model around it is not. 4 6 7 9
Structured content, localisation & export
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether content is stored as reusable structure rather than pages: a content model, components shared across channels, German and other locales managed side by side, and the whole repository exportable in a documented format.
0 — Content stored as formatted pages with no structure, one language per entry, and no export beyond copy and paste.
3 — Custom fields or templates exist, but localisation means duplicating entries, assets live elsewhere, and the only export is HTML or a CSV of titles.
5 — A configurable content model with reusable components, field-level localisation with fallback languages, a media library with alt text, and an export of entries and assets in JSON or a similar documented format.
8 — References between entries, variants per market or audience, translation workflows with status per locale and connectors to translation services named, and a full export of content, model, locales and assets documented and self-service.
10 — The repository is portable by design: model and content exportable together and re-importable, migration tooling or a CLI documented in both directions, version history included in the export, and no feature that only works while the content stays.
The Head of Content
Spanish, Italian and UK English are supported and a financial services client reportedly localized 252 articles in a day, so localisation capability is evidenced. We found no public information on a content model, reusable components, field-level localisation with fallbacks, or an export of entries and assets in a documented format — the thinnest part of the public record for a content operations buyer. 1 8 12
The SME Marketer
The platform states support for Spanish, Italian and UK English "with more languages to come", and a customer story describes 252 localized articles shipped in a day — thin for me, since German is not among the named languages and nothing explains how locales are actually structured. We found no public information on a configurable content model, reusable components, field-level localisation with fallbacks, or a documented export of the repository. 8 12
The Localisation Lead
The only localisation evidence is an announcement of Spanish, Italian and UK English support plus a case study of 252 localised compliance articles shipped in a single day. We found no public information on a configurable content model, reusable components, whether locales live on fields or as duplicated entries, translation status per language, connectors to translation services, or a documented export of content, model and locales. For a multilingual operation that is the deciding gap: nothing captured shows the repository can leave in a documented form. 1 8 12
The Web Engineer
Platform support for Spanish, Italian and UK English, plus a case with 252 localized articles shipped in a day, shows localisation happens — but the captured pages describe stories, briefs and multimedia rather than a configurable content model with reusable components. I found no public information on field-level localisation with fallbacks, a documented export of content, model and assets, or migration tooling in either direction, which is exactly the portability a headless buyer would ask about. 4 8 12
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages show language support for Spanish, Italian and UK English and a REST/JSON API with project and review endpoints plus webhooks for a data warehouse. I found no public information on a configurable content model, reusable components shared across channels, field-level localisation with fallback languages, a media library, or a documented self-service export of entries and assets, so portability of the repository rests on the API alone. 8 9 10
The Skeptic
Localisation on the platform is Spanish, Italian and UK English "with more languages to come", plus a case study of 252 localized articles shipped in a day; we found no public information on field-level locales, fallback languages, per-locale workflow status, translation connectors, a configurable content model or reusable components. Nor did I find public information on a documented, self-service export of content, model, locales and history — the published API endpoints cover the talent and project lifecycle, not the repository. Three: languages yes, portability unevidenced. 8 10 12
Publishing, distribution & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting approved content to where it is read: publishing to websites and channels, a documented API and webhooks, and named connections to the CMS, CRM, analytics, SEO and translation tools a marketing stack already runs.
0 — Content leaves only by copy and paste; no API, no webhooks and no named integrations.
3 — Publishing to one CMS through a plugin, a handful of named integrations, and an API that is mentioned but not publicly documented.
5 — Publishing to websites and several channels from one place, a publicly documented REST or GraphQL API, webhooks on publish and change, and integrations named for at least the common CMS, CRM and analytics tools.
8 — A versioned API with published rate limits and SDKs, preview environments, a marketplace or integration directory with maintained connectors, performance data per piece pulled back from analytics, and a public status page.
10 — The platform is a dependable source for every channel: API deprecation policy published, CDN and delivery SLA stated, scheduled and event-driven publishing documented end to end, and content performance attributed per channel without a separate tool.
The Head of Content
One-click distribution to CMS, social, CRM and email, 32+ native connectors across the common categories, a documented REST and GraphQL API with OAuth2 scoped tokens, webhooks on every state change, and a stated two weeks to a working Salesforce and CMS sync form a real stack. Performance comes back in through the Content Value Dashboard and pipeline attribution synced to CRM. We found no public information on a versioned API, SDKs, a connector marketplace, preview environments, or a status page. 4 9 10
The SME Marketer
One-click distribution to CMS, social, CRM and email, 32+ native connectors across the categories my stack runs, and a genuinely documented REST and GraphQL API with OAuth2, webhooks on every state change, per-route rate limits and even an MCP server. Performance data per piece flows back through the Content Value Dashboard, refreshed daily with pipeline attribution synced to the CRM. We found no public information on SDKs, preview environments, a public status page or an API deprecation policy. 4 9 10
The Localisation Lead
One-click distribution to CMS, social, CRM and email, 32+ native connectors across CMS, CRM, marketing automation, social and analytics, REST and GraphQL APIs with OAuth2 scoped tokens, webhooks on every state change, per-route rate limits, and per-piece performance in a Content Value Dashboard refreshed daily; webhook targets include Slack, Teams and raw HTTP, and an MCP server exposes the project lifecycle to agents. We found no public information on API versioning, SDKs, preview environments, a public integration directory or a status page. 4 5 9 10
The Web Engineer
This is the strong suit: 32+ native connectors across CMS, CRM, marketing automation, social and analytics, one-click distribution to CMS, social, CRM and email, webhooks on every state change with Slack, Teams and raw HTTP targets, OAuth2 with scoped tokens, a documented REST and GraphQL API plus an MCP server, and per-piece performance data in the Content Value Dashboard with pipeline attribution synced to the CRM. Per-route rate limits are stated as a feature, but I found no public information on published limit values, API versioning, SDKs, preview environments or a public status page. 4 5 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
One-click distribution to CMS, social, CRM and email, 32+ native connectors across CMS, CRM, marketing automation, social and analytics with Salesforce named, REST and GraphQL APIs with OAuth2 and per-route rate limits, webhooks on every state change including Slack, Teams and raw HTTP, an MCP server, and per-piece performance on an auditable Content Value Dashboard refreshed daily. I found no public information on SDKs, preview environments, a public status page, or published rate-limit values. 4 5 9 10
The Skeptic
Thirty-two or more native connectors across CMS, CRM, marketing automation, social and analytics, one-click distribution to CMS, social, CRM and email, webhooks on every state change, REST and GraphQL with OAuth2 scoped tokens and per-route rate limits, plus per-piece performance through the Content Value Dashboard with pipeline attribution synced to CRM — a real distribution story. Salesforce is the one integration named individually; we found no public information on published rate-limit figures, SDKs, preview environments, a maintained integration directory, a public status page or an API deprecation policy. Six. 4 9 10
AI assistance & content rights
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the platform's AI does with the customer's content and what the customer may do with the AI's: the models and where they run, whether content trains them, opt-out, labelling of generated text, and who holds the rights to output.
0 — AI writing features with no statement on which model is used, where content is sent, or whether it is used for training.
3 — An AI page that names a provider but leaves open whether customer content trains models, where prompts are processed, or whether the features can be switched off.
5 — The model providers named as subprocessors, customer content excluded from training stated in the terms, AI features switchable per workspace by an admin, and ownership of generated output assigned to the customer.
8 — EU processing for AI features stated or selectable, retention of prompts and outputs given in days, generated or AI-edited content markable for EU AI Act transparency, and brand voice or terminology rules applied without uploading content to train a shared model.
10 — AI is governed and documented: per-feature list of model, provider and processing location, admin controls per role and content type, an audit trail of AI-generated changes, and the output rights and any indemnity written into the contract terms.
The Head of Content
The AI posture is unusually clean: opt-in only under a signed agreement, no training of base models on customer content, prompts not aggregated across tenants, brand-voice training in-tenant per customer, drafts with inline citations and a confidence score, a human editor gate, and a published AI Use Statement. We found no public information on which model providers are used, where prompts are processed, retention of prompts and outputs, EU AI Act labelling, or who holds rights to generated output — governance intent is evidenced, provider accountability is not. 11 12
The SME Marketer
My two big questions get clear answers: customer content does not train base models, prompts are not aggregated across tenants, brand-voice fine-tuning runs per customer in-tenant, and AI is opt-in only — the core platform uses no AI and AI Studio needs a signed agreement, with a human editor gating every draft. But we found no public information on which models and providers run AI Studio, where prompts are processed and how long they are retained, EU AI Act labelling of generated text, or who owns the generated output — that last gap is exactly what my legal team will ask about. 3 11 12
The Localisation Lead
The AI governance position is unusually plain: the main platform uses no AI, AI Studio is a separate opt-in product that never touches customer data without a signed agreement, base models are not trained on customer content, prompts are not aggregated across tenants, and brand-voice fine-tuning runs per customer in-tenant on that customer's data, with drafts carrying inline citations and a confidence score and passing a human editor before publish. We found no public information on which model providers are used, where prompts are processed, retention periods for prompts and outputs, EU AI Act labelling, or who holds the rights to generated output. 3 11 12
The Web Engineer
The governance posture is unusually explicit and I like the default-off stance: the core platform uses no AI, AI Studio is a separate opt-in product on its own infrastructure behind a signed agreement, base models are not trained on customer content, prompts are not aggregated across tenants, and brand-voice fine-tuning runs in-tenant on that customer's data with named agents reviewed by a human editor. I found no public information on which model providers run the features, where prompts are processed, retention in days for prompts and outputs, EU AI Act labelling of generated text, or who holds the rights to generated output. 3 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
AI is opt-in only under an explicitly signed agreement, the everyday platform is stated to use no AI, AI Studio runs on separate infrastructure with brand-voice training fine-tuned per customer in-tenant, base models are stated not to be trained on customer content, prompts are not aggregated across tenants, human editors gate every draft, and IP-assignment confirmation is captured before publish. I found no public information naming the model providers as subprocessors, on where prompts and outputs are processed, or on prompt retention in days; the no-training commitment sits on the AI governance page, while the terms carry only the opt-in statement. 3 10 11 12
The Skeptic
The AI governance page answers the training question the way I wish everyone did: no base-model training on customer content, no aggregation of prompts across tenants, brand-voice training per customer in-tenant, and a core platform that — per the vendor — uses no AI at all, with AI Studio separate, opt-in, and touching customer data only under a signed agreement. What remains invisible: which models and providers, where prompts are processed, retention of prompts and outputs, EU AI Act labelling of generated text, and who owns the AI's output. Five — the input side is governed, the rights side is unanswered. 3 11 12
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where content, assets and AI prompts are stored and processed, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where content is hosted, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — Content hosted in the EU on request or on a higher plan only, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI and analytics features send content outside the EU without an explained safeguard.
5 — EU hosting stated for content and assets, a DPA available, but the contracting entity or significant parts of the chain (CDN, AI, support) are non-EU without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU contracting entity, content, assets and backups stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations and purposes, and AI processing location stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every hosting, CDN, AI and support subprocessor European or optional, self-hosting or a European cloud offered, and certifications published.
The Head of Content
The contracting entity is Contently, Inc. of New York, data residency is stated as EU and US, and the subprocessor list must be requested from security rather than being published; GDPR and SOC 2 appear on the security page. We found no public information on where AI prompts are processed, any commitment to EU-only hosting, or a stated safeguard for the non-EU parts of the chain. 2 4 9 11
The SME Marketer
EU and US data residency is stated, documents are encrypted, and a security page names SOC 2 and GDPR — but the contracting entity is Contently, Inc. of New York, the subprocessor list is available only by emailing the security address, and we found no public information on where AI prompts are processed or a data processing agreement I can read. For a German Mittelstand buyer that mix means real diligence work before signing. 2 4 9
The Localisation Lead
Contently, Inc. is a New York company whose terms operate under US frameworks such as the DMCA; data residency is stated only as EU and US with nothing on which applies by default, and the subprocessor list is available only by emailing the security address, though the security page does name SOC 2, GDPR and a controls matrix. We found no public information on a DPA, on where AI prompts are processed, or on any European entity or safeguard in the chain. 2 3 4 9
The Web Engineer
The contracting entity is Contently, Inc. of New York, hosting is stated as EU and US data residency, and the security pages name SOC 2, GDPR and a controls matrix — but the subprocessor list is available only by emailing the security contact, and I found no public information on a DPA or on where the separate AI Studio infrastructure processes prompts. As it stands this is a hosting-residency option from a US entity rather than an evidenced European chain. 2 3 4 9 11
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Contently, Inc. of New York, and the subprocessor list is available only by emailing security@contently.com, with no published providers, locations or purposes. Beyond a bare "EU and US data residency" line and GDPR appearing as a security-page topic, I found no public information on where content, assets and backups are stored, on the AI processing location, on a data processing agreement, or on the named infrastructure behind the EU residency claim. 2 4 9 11
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Contently, Inc. of New York, and the pages state "EU and US data residency" with no named infrastructure behind it. We found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes — the site asks buyers to email security for the current list — on a DPA, on where AI Studio's own infrastructure runs, or on EU options for CDN and support; a security page references SOC 2, GDPR and a controls matrix without publishing certificates. Two. 2 4 9
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the annual cost for their team, locales and traffic from public pages alone — seats and contributor roles, locales, content records, API calls and bandwidth, AI credits, and the plan where approval workflows or SSO begin.
0 — No public prices at all; every plan is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price per month, but what it includes is vague and the limits that drive the real cost (locales, records, API calls, AI credits) are unstated.
5 — Plans priced per seat with their main limits listed, but at least one commonly incurred cost (extra locales, overage on records or API calls, AI credits, guest contributors) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every plan priced with seats, locales, records, API and bandwidth limits and overage rates stated, AI usage priced or included explicitly, and the plan that unlocks approval workflows, SSO and audit logs named.
10 — Complete cost computability: annual cost derivable for a given team, locale count and traffic, every add-on and overage priced publicly, contract term and renewal conditions stated, and the cost of exporting or leaving the platform zero or published.
The Head of Content
We found no public prices at all: the described commercial model is a pre-funded content bank billed on one invoice, with a free sample article, a 30-minute strategy call, and an AI Studio walkthrough as the entry points. Every plan is a sales conversation, so a buyer cannot compute any cost from public pages. 1 10 12
The SME Marketer
The captured pages show no prices at all — the calls to action are a 30-minute strategy call and booking an AI Studio walkthrough, and the commercial model described is a pre-funded content bank where Contently pays every contractor on one invoice. For my case, a second language plus the agency as guests, nothing lets me compute an annual cost; every plan is a sales conversation. 1 10 12
The Localisation Lead
We found no public prices on any captured page: every commercial path leads to a 30-minute strategy call, an AI Studio walkthrough or a pre-funded content bank, and no free trial is stated. A buyer cannot compute an annual cost for a team, locales, records or API usage from public information alone, so this sits at the floor of the scale. 1 10 12
The Web Engineer
There are no public prices anywhere in the captured pages: the commercial entry points are a free sample article, a 30-minute strategy call and a walkthrough booking, and the funded content-bank model means the buyer's cost is a negotiated invoice with contractor payouts handled by the vendor. Every plan is a sales conversation, so no buyer can compute an annual cost from public pages. 1 10 12
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public prices in the captured pages — no plans, seat rates, limits or add-on rates — while the only routes in are a 30-minute strategy call, a free sample article and an AI Studio walkthrough, with a pre-funded content bank described as the commercial model and no published rates. An annual cost for a given team is not computable from public pages. 1 10 12
The Skeptic
No public price of any kind: the buyer is offered a 30-minute strategy call, an AI Studio walkthrough and a free sample article, while the terms describe project fees, a pre-funded content bank and payouts to freelancers within thirty days of the customer's payment. We found no public information on seats, per-project rates, AI Studio pricing, or what a third locale and heavier API use would cost. Zero — every number is a sales conversation. 1 3 12
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Contently
Is Contently European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Contently as Rest of world.
Where does Contently store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Contently have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Contently?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates CoreMedia (3/5), Storyblok (2.5/5) and Kontent.ai (2.5/5) highest among the other 14 Content Marketing products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is CoreMedia (EU origin, foreign-owned). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Contently alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (contently.com, contently.com/privacy-policy, contently.com/terms, contently.com/content-marketing-platform/content-planning, contently.com/platform/strategy, contently.com/2015/04/07/inline-comments-are-here-and-theyre-amazing and 6 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 7 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 legal fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Terms of service contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Planning, editorial calendar & briefs — found from sitemap contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Planning, editorial calendar & briefs — found from sitemap contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Creation, review & approval — found from sitemap contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Creation, review & approval — found from sitemap contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Structured content, localisation & export — found from sitemap contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 AI assistance & content rights — found from sitemap contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI assistance & content rights — found from sitemap contently.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →