Social Media Marketing
Agorapulse
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Agorapulse SAS · www.agorapulse.com
Compare with Fanpage Karma → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Agorapulse SAS, a Paris-based social media management vendor, was judged from a thin sheet: the homepage is mostly taglines and the privacy policy carries the evidence; persona-weighted totals run 2.8 to 3.8. Strongest is network coverage & API resilience, a flat 4, on official-API publishing, moderation, analytics and keyword monitoring across X (Twitter), Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube; sovereignty scores 3-4 on the French SAS entity, French data protection law, CNIL recourse and SCCs. Engagement & community inbox spans 4-6 — the only criterion ranging two points — with a centralized, API-backed inbox credited and accountability features (assignment, per-person history) unevidenced. The weakest are pricing transparency at 1-2, where the captured pricing page yields no price, tier or limit beyond a 30-day free trial with no credit card required, and publishing at 2, a scheduling slogan with no calendar, variants or failure handling shown. Judges also cite stored data deleted 7 days (YouTube) or 90 days (other platforms) after disconnect. No split between the judges was large enough to flag.
Speaks for it
- Publishing, moderation, analytics and keyword monitoring run through the official APIs of X (Twitter), Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube
- A centralized inbox tracks and answers all interactions, with prioritization, automation and centralized comment moderation and message moderation via official APIs
- Contracting entity Agorapulse SAS sits in Paris under French data protection law, with a stated controller/processor split, SCCs for transfers and CNIL recourse
- Approval workflows for posts and agency functions are explicit product pillars
- A 30-day free trial with no credit card required is open for hands-on evaluation
Held against it
- The captured pricing page yields no price, tier, seat cost or account limit, so no annual invoice can be computed
- Publishing evidence stops at advance scheduling — no calendar working surface, per-network variants, bulk operations or handling for a post that fails overnight
- Stored data is deleted 7 days after a YouTube disconnect and 90 days after other platforms, so the archive does not outlive the connection
- Hosting is Amazon AWS with no region stated, the subprocessor list is referenced as Article 4 without appearing, and ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure are marked unknown
- Assignment, per-person history, role granularity and any audit trail of who approved what are unevidenced in inbox and approvals
Best for
- You need one queue to track and answer comments and messages across X (Twitter), Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube over official APIs
- Your procurement requires an EU contracting entity with French law, a stated controller/processor split and a CNIL complaint route
- You publish on the five major networks and want API-compliant scheduling, moderation, analytics and keyword monitoring with a system-status page to watch
- You want to evaluate hands-on first via the 30-day free trial with no credit card required
Avoid if
- You must know the price, the tiers, or the tier where approvals and the inbox begin before committing — none is public
- Your compliance regime needs a published subprocessor list, a stated hosting region and known ownership — all missing or unknown here
- You must retain your engagement archive after disconnecting an account — data is deleted within 7 days (YouTube) or 90 days (other platforms)
- You need an audit trail of who wrote, approved and released each post, or approval enforced before publication
The scores
Publishing & calendar
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Scheduling across networks: per-network formatting, the calendar as a working surface, bulk operations, and what happens when a post fails at 3am.
0 — One post to several networks at once with no per-network variation and no calendar.
3 — A calendar with scheduling and basic per-network text variants; failures are discovered by noticing the post never appeared.
5 — Per-network content, media and first-comment variants, drafts, a usable calendar with drag-and-drop, and failure notifications with a retry.
8 — Bulk upload and CSV import, evergreen or queue-based scheduling, link shortening with UTM rules, preview matching each network's actual rendering, and stories, reels or shorts supported where the API allows.
10 — Publishing is dependable at volume: hundreds of scheduled items across many accounts without collision, best-time recommendations from the account's own history, and every failure surfaced with the platform error and a one-click recovery.
The Community Manager
Advance scheduling across X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube through official APIs is confirmed, but no calendar, per-network variants, bulk operations or failure handling appear anywhere in the evidence. When a post fails at 3am I learn about it by noticing it never appeared — which is exactly what rubric level 3 describes, and there's no calendar evidence to even earn that fully. 1 3
The Agency Lead
Advance scheduling across X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube is confirmed through official APIs, and a beta AI engine (Archie) exists — but the evidence is silent on the calendar as a working surface, per-network variants, bulk operations, and what happens when a post fails overnight. Running twelve brands, I need to know a 3am failure surfaces itself, and nothing here says it does. 1 3
The Brand Governance Officer
Advance scheduling across the five major networks via official APIs is confirmed, but the evidence is silent on per-network variants, the calendar as a working surface, bulk operations and previews. And the question that decides it for me — what happens when a post fails at 3am — has no answer anywhere: no notification, no retry, no platform error surfaced. 1 3
The Analyst
Scheduling in advance is confirmed and publishing runs on official platform APIs, but the evidence never evidences a calendar as a working surface, per-network variants, bulk operations, link shortening or failure notification with retry — I cannot even confirm the anchor-3 calendar, so this sits just above the floor. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Scheduling through the official platform APIs is confirmed and the homepage advertises planning posts in advance, but there is no evidence of a calendar surface, per-network variants, bulk operations, previews or any failure handling at 3am — and silence here means the capability is not shown. 1 3
Engagement & community inbox
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Comments, mentions and messages in one queue — the half of the job that is customer service wearing a marketing badge.
0 — No inbox; engagement happens in each native app.
3 — Mentions and comments listed per network with no assignment, no status and no history.
5 — A unified inbox across the connected networks with assignment, status and internal notes, and the conversation history visible per person.
8 — Direct messages included where the API allows, saved replies, SLA timers, sentiment or priority flags, spam and hidden-comment handling, and escalation to a helpdesk.
10 — The inbox is a service desk: every public and private interaction in one queue with ownership and response-time reporting, moderation rules that act automatically, and a per-person history spanning networks.
The Community Manager
A centralized inbox for 'all your interactions', centralized comment moderation, and inbox prioritization/automation are confirmed, and the privacy policy shows messages are moderated via official APIs — that's my one-queue baseline across networks. But assignment, saved replies, status, internal notes and per-person history are all unevidenced, so it's a queue without the service-desk furniture an 8 requires. 1 3
The Agency Lead
A centralized inbox that tracks and answers all interactions, with prioritization, automation and comment moderation, plus official-API access to comments and messages — that clears rubric level 3. But assignment, status, internal notes and per-person history are all unevidenced, and that's precisely how my team divides client work, so it stops short of a 5. 1 3
The Brand Governance Officer
A centralised inbox tracking and answering all interactions, with both comments and messages handled through official APIs, plus claimed prioritisation and automation in the inbox, clears the unified-inbox bar. What is unevidenced is the accountability layer I look for: assignment, internal notes, per-person history and response-time reporting. 1 3
The Analyst
A centralised inbox tracking and answering all interactions, prioritisation and automation in that inbox, plus moderation of comments and messages over official APIs, clear the anchor-3 bar — but assignment, status, internal notes and per-person conversation history are nowhere evidenced, which is exactly what rubric level 5 turns on. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
A centralized inbox for 'all interactions' plus comment moderation and inbox prioritization/automation are claimed, and the privacy policy confirms moderation of comments and messages via official APIs — but assignment, status, internal notes and per-person history are unevidenced. The only retention statement touching this archive is deletion 7–90 days after an account is disconnected, which says nothing about retention while the account is live. 1 3
The Skeptic
Three separate homepage claims — a centralized inbox tracking all interactions, prioritization and automation, centralized comment moderation — plus the privacy policy confirming comments and messages are moderated through official APIs. Missing: assignment, status, per-person history, spam handling; 'automatisieren' in marketing copy tells me nothing about what each network's API actually permits. 1 3
Analytics & reporting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Measurement across networks with different metrics and retention windows, plus the reporting an agency hands a client.
0 — Per-network vanity counts pulled live; no history kept.
3 — Basic post and profile metrics with a short history and no cross-network comparison.
5 — Metrics stored beyond the networks' own retention, cross-network comparison, competitor benchmarking, and scheduled exports.
8 — Custom dashboards, white-label client reporting, paid and organic combined where the API allows, UTM-based attribution into web analytics, and audience demographics over time.
10 — Reporting answers what worked and why: metrics normalised across networks with the differences documented rather than hidden, full historical retention independent of platform windows, and exports an agency can hand over unedited.
The Community Manager
Analytics and reporting on connected profiles via official APIs, plus ROI and agency modules, is everything the evidence offers. No cross-network comparison, no retention beyond platform windows, no exports — rubric level 3's basic post and profile metrics. 1 3
The Agency Lead
Reporting and ROI are named modules and per-profile analytics run through official APIs, which is bare-bones measurement. Nothing on cross-network comparison, retention beyond platform windows, white-label client reporting or scheduled exports — the client-handover report is the thing I need, and it is entirely unevidenced. 1 3
The Brand Governance Officer
Reporting and ROI modules plus analytics on connected profiles through official APIs amount to basic post and profile metrics. Nothing in the evidence evidences retention beyond the networks' own windows, cross-network comparison, competitor benchmarking or scheduled exports — the report an agency hands a client unedited is nowhere shown. 1 3
The Analyst
'Reporting' and 'ROI' are module names fed by official analytics APIs, which gets basic post and profile metrics — but the evidence is silent on retention beyond the networks' own windows, cross-network normalisation, competitor benchmarking, scheduled exports and UTM attribution into web analytics, i.e. everything above the anchor-3 line. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Reporting, monitoring and ROI modules are marketed and analytics run on connected profiles through official APIs, but nothing evidences history kept beyond platform windows, cross-network comparison, competitor benchmarking or scheduled exports — I cannot credit retention of metrics that the evidence never claims. 1 3
The Skeptic
'Reporting' and 'ROI' are module labels and analytics on connected profiles via official APIs is confirmed, but nothing evidences history beyond the platforms' own retention, cross-network comparison, or a report an agency could hand a client. I have watched an API change vaporize a year of history, and this sheet is silent on whether Agorapulse keeps the archive. 1 3
Approvals, roles & brand safety
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How a team of several people and an agency publish to a brand account without an accident — and who can be shown to have approved what.
0 — Shared login, no roles, no approvals.
3 — Separate users with a coarse admin split and an optional single approval step.
5 — Roles per network and account, multi-step approval workflows, comments on drafts, and an activity log.
8 — Client or brand workspaces with strict separation, configurable approval chains including legal review, content locking after approval, and an audit trail of who changed and published what.
10 — Governance a regulated brand could pass an audit on: complete audit trail of edits, approvals and publications, enforced approval before anything reaches a network, granular permissions per account and action, and no shared credentials anywhere in the design.
The Community Manager
Approval workflows for posts are marketed ('stop the annoying emails to get post approvals'), but there is zero evidence of roles, draft comments, content locking or any audit trail. As the one who gets blamed when an unapproved post ships, a single evidenced approval step with no roles visibility is exactly rubric level 3. 1
The Agency Lead
Approval workflows for posts and an explicit agency section mean approvals are more than a single optional step, clearing rubric level 3. But the evidence says nothing about client workspaces with strict separation, approval chains that include the client, content locking or an audit trail — running twelve strictly separated brands, that silence is the whole ballgame. 1
The Brand Governance Officer
Approval workflows for posts and agency functions are marketed, which beats a bare single approval step. But there is no evidence of role granularity per account, content locking, or an audit trail of who wrote, approved and released what — and critically, nothing shows approval is enforced before a post reaches the network rather than an optional courtesy step. On a corporate account that absence is decisive. 1
The Analyst
Approval workflows for posts are marketed explicitly, which is more than an optional single step — but no roles per network or account, no comments on drafts, no activity log and no audit trail appear anywhere, so it cannot reach the anchor-5 definition of who approved what. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Approval workflows for posts are an explicit product pillar ('Freigabe-Workflows') together with agency functions, which takes this above a single optional step; but roles per account, comments on drafts, content locking and any audit trail are entirely silent, and for governance undocumented means unverifiable. 1
The Skeptic
Approval workflows and agency support appear as taglines, which clears 'shared login', but roles per account, multi-step chains, draft comments and audit trails are entirely unevidenced. My standing question — who can be shown to have approved what — has no answer here. 1
Network coverage & API resilience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which networks are supported through official APIs, how quickly the vendor follows platform changes, and what the customer keeps when a network breaks or leaves.
0 — A few networks, some through unofficial means, with no statement about API status or platform changes.
3 — The major networks through official APIs, but feature gaps undocumented and platform changes communicated after they bite.
5 — Official API integrations across the main networks with the per-network limitations documented, and a changelog when platform behaviour changes.
8 — Broad official coverage including the newer networks, a public status page for integrations, advance notice of deprecations, and full export of the customer's own publishing and engagement archive.
10 — Platform dependency handled as an engineering commitment: official partner status where it exists, per-network capability documented and kept current, rapid response to API changes with the history to show it, and an archive that stays the customer's whatever a network does next.
The Community Manager
Official API use is explicitly stated across X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube, and a 'Systemstatus' page is offered — that's real resilience posture. But per-network limitation docs, advance deprecation notice, and export of the publishing/engagement archive are all unevidenced, so it can't reach the 5. 1 3
The Agency Lead
The five major networks are confirmed through official APIs, with Google Limited Use compliance and a Systemstatus link — solid ground above rubric level 3. No evidence of newer networks, a changelog, advance notice of deprecations, or export of my archive; in fact the policy states my data is deleted 7 days (YouTube) or 90 days (others) after disconnect. 1 3
The Brand Governance Officer
X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube all run through the official platform APIs — the right foundation — and a system-status resource is listed. But per-network limitation documentation, a changelog, advance deprecation notice, and export of our own publishing and engagement archive are all absent from the evidence. 1 3
The Analyst
Official API integrations across the five majors (X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube) are confirmed, and a status page is listed — but per-network capability documentation, a changelog for platform changes and any archive-export guarantee for the customer's own history are all absent, leaving this between the anchor-3 and anchor-5 definitions. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Five major networks through official APIs for publishing, moderation, analytics and keyword monitoring is stated plainly, with a 'Systemstatus' resource listed, but per-network limitation docs, changelogs, deprecation notice and archive export are all unevidenced — and the 7/90-day deletion after disconnection is the opposite of the customer keeping the archive. 1 3
The Skeptic
The strongest fact in the evidence is buried in legal text: 'Agorapulse uses the official APIs of the Associated Platforms' for publishing, moderation, analytics and keyword monitoring, and a Systemstatus link exists. But the named platforms stop at X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube 'and the other social networks described on the Site' — no list of the others, no per-network limitation docs, no changelog — and on disconnect stored data is deleted within 7–90 days, so the archive does not outlive the connection. 3 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the archive and the community conversations are processed, who the contracting entity is, which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. Note that the networks themselves are non-EU by definition — this criterion judges the tool, not the platforms it talks to.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI features, analytics, support tooling — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU or DACH hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, and the handling of message content from the networks described with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a DPA that squarely addresses the personal data arriving from the networks in comments and messages.
The Community Manager
A Paris SAS contracting entity under French law with CNIL recourse is solid, but hosting is AWS with no region stated, no subprocessor list appears in evidence (only a vague reference to 'Article 4' providers), and SCC-based transfer clauses imply a non-EU leg in the chain. The subprocessor absence is exactly what the rubric level 3 describes. 3
The Agency Lead
Agorapulse SAS in Paris is the contracting entity, French law applies with the CNIL named, and SCCs cover any transfers — better than rubric level 3's non-EU-entity scenario. But hosting is 'Amazon AWS' with no region stated, the subprocessor list lives in an unpublished 'Article 4', and ownership is unknown, so it never reaches rubric level 5's 'EU hosting as standard' bar. 3
The Brand Governance Officer
A Paris-based SAS contracting under French law incorporating EU data protection regulations, CNIL as supervisory authority, and SCCs for transfers is a genuine European footing. But hosting is Amazon AWS with no region stated, and the subprocessors are referenced as a list we never see — ownership, residency and subprocessor exposure are all marked unknown, so the chain is only half-visible. 3
The Analyst
An EU contracting entity in Paris, French-law framing, SCCs for transfers and the CNIL complaint route are all in the policy, but hosting is Amazon AWS with the region unstated and the subprocessor list is only referenced (Article 4) rather than published — residency unknown means I cannot credit EU hosting as standard, matching the anchor-3 condition of an absent subprocessor list. 3
The Data Protection Officer
A French SAS contracting entity, a stated controller/processor split, an SCC framework and the CNIL reference are genuine strengths. But AWS is named with no region, the subprocessor list is referenced (Article 4) yet never shown, and nothing tells me where the Archie AI engine or the inbox automation sends message text — the DPA-grade answer to personal data arriving from the networks is not in this sheet. 1 3
The Skeptic
Agorapulse SAS in Paris, French data protection law, CNIL and SCCs for transfers make the contracting entity genuinely EU, which is better than the anchor-3 case. But hosting is 'Amazon AWS' with no region stated, subprocessors are only 'listed in Article 4' without the list itself appearing, and ownership is unknown — the chain behind the Paris front door is unevidenced. 3
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a team can compute the real annual invoice for their account and user count — including the tier where approvals and the inbox begin — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-user headline exists, but the number of social accounts included, or the tier where approvals and the inbox appear, is unstated.
5 — Per-user or per-account prices public with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed capability (inbox, approvals, reporting) sits in an unpriced tier.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with account and user limits, feature boundaries, the cost of an extra account or seat, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of social accounts, users and client workspaces, with every add-on priced.
The Community Manager
A captured pricing page yielded no price facts at all — no per-user number, no account limits, and crucially no indication of which tier the inbox and approvals live in. Only a 30-day no-credit-card trial is public, so no team can compute an annual invoice from this sheet. 1 2
The Agency Lead
The only public pricing facts are a 30-day free trial with no credit card — the captured pricing page yielded no tier prices, account limits, or the tier where approvals and the inbox begin. I cannot compute a real annual invoice for twelve client brands from this, which sits just above rubric level 0 only because a public pricing page demonstrably exists. 1 2
The Brand Governance Officer
The only public numbers in the evidence are a 30-day trial with no credit card required; a pricing page is registered but yielded no confirmed price, tier, billing period or account limit. I cannot tell a board which tier approvals and the inbox begin in, let alone compute an annual invoice. 1 2
The Analyst
The captured pricing page produced no confirmable price facts at all — no per-user or per-account figure, no tier where approvals and the inbox begin, no limits or billing terms — so a team cannot compute an annual invoice from this evidence; only the 30-day no-credit-card trial is publicly confirmed. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
No price, tier, account limit, seat cost or feature boundary is confirmed anywhere; the captured pricing page produced not a single figure, and the only pricing-adjacent fact is a 30-day trial without credit card. A team cannot compute an annual invoice from this evidence. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 4 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 15 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The statement sits on a marketing-style security overview rather than a contractual DPA, and the underlying host is the US provider AWS.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. AWS is US-headquartered and thus exposed to the US CLOUD Act even though the data is hosted in its Ireland region.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 57 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
- 15 pricing 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
- 4 support 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
- 3 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 data 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 integrations 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.agorapulse.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.agorapulse.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.agorapulse.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page www.agorapulse.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Imprint www.agorapulse.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Publishing & calendar — found from sitemap support.agorapulse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Publishing & calendar — found from sitemap support.agorapulse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Engagement & community inbox — found from sitemap support.agorapulse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Engagement & community inbox — found from sitemap support.agorapulse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Analytics & reporting — found from sitemap support.agorapulse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Analytics & reporting — found from sitemap support.agorapulse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Approvals, roles & brand safety — found from sitemap support.agorapulse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Approvals, roles & brand safety — found from sitemap support.agorapulse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Network coverage & API resilience — found from sitemap support.agorapulse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Network coverage & API resilience — found from sitemap support.agorapulse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →