Social Media Marketing
Hopper HQ
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Hopper HQ · hopperhq.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.
Hopper HQ at a glance
- Vendor
- Hopper HQ
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Hopper HQ 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Hopper HQ is a social media planning, scheduling and analytics platform. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Hopper HQ is a social media planning, scheduling and analytics platform. Its strongest scoring is publishing, 7 to 8: bulk and CSV upload, year-long evergreen scheduling and one-click retry on rejection. Platform coverage sits at a flat 6 on official-API connections and claimed Meta Business Partner status. Analytics and reporting scores 4 to 5 on cross-network metrics, demographics, a best-time heat map and PNG, SVG or CSV export. Collaboration governance is a flat 4 — three roles and a single approval step — with no public information on an audit trail. The weakness is the engagement inbox at 0 to 1: no public information confirms a unified inbox, assignment or direct-message handling. Sovereignty scores 0 to 1: the controller is Hopper HQ Ltd, a UK entity; the only hosting statement captured is a Privacy Shield reference, with no public information on subprocessors. Plans are sized by connected social accounts; no public price figures were found, and the 14-day trial takes card details at signup. Scores cluster tightly; the captured pages give different figures for the network list, analytics coverage and plan sizing.
Speaks for it
- Publishing scores 7 to 8, with bulk and CSV import, evergreen scheduling up to a full year, and a rejection alert with one-click retry
- Every connection is stated to use official network APIs, with Meta Business Partner status claimed
- Analytics scores 4 to 5, with follower demographics, a best-time heat map and one-click export to PNG, SVG or CSV
- A single approval step with three roles, a pending-approval toggle and per-client calendars is documented
- Help-centre articles document failure modes such as missing Facebook permissions and a Refresh Connection fix
Held against it
- Engagement inbox scores 0 to 1, with no public information confirming a unified inbox, assignment, statuses or direct-message handling
- Approval is a single step, with no public information on an audit trail of who approved and published what
- Sovereignty scores 0 to 1, on a UK controller, a hosting statement limited to a Privacy Shield reference, and no public information on a subprocessor list or data processing agreement
- Preview evidence covers only the Instagram and TikTok grids, with no public information on link shortening with UTM rules
- The captured pages give different figures for the supported-network list and for which networks analytics covers
Best for
- You schedule in bulk across many networks and want evergreen queues planned up to a year ahead, with alerts and one-click retry when a post is rejected
- You want one clear approval hop before posts go live, with coarse roles and per-client calendars for agency work
- You need cross-network analytics with follower demographics and one-click PNG, SVG or CSV exports to hand to clients
Avoid if
- Your work centres on replying to comments and direct messages from inside one tool — engagement inbox scores run 0 to 1
- You must show an auditor or client who approved and published each post — approval is a single documented step, and no public information covers an audit trail
- You require an EU-based controller and visible subprocessor arrangements — the controller is Hopper HQ Ltd, a UK entity, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Publishing & calendar | 4 of 5 |
| Engagement & community inbox | 0.5 of 5 |
| Analytics & reporting | 2.5 of 5 |
| Approvals, roles & brand safety | 2 of 5 |
| Network coverage & API resilience | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
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
This is the dependable side: per-network captions, first comment with hashtag groups, drafts, a drag-and-drop calendar and grid preview, bulk and CSV upload with bulk destination setting, evergreen scheduling up to a year ahead, and — the part I care about most — a network rejection sends an alert with a one-click retry, plus a Refresh Connection fix for the classic Facebook permissions failure. We found no public information on link shortening with UTM rules or on how it holds up at volume, so I stop short of the very top. 1 3 4 10
The Agency Lead
Bulk upload and CSV import, queue-style slots that fill automatically with a year-long horizon for evergreen campaigns, per-network captions with first comments, and Stories, Reels and Shorts support put publishing at the dependable end, and failures arrive as an alert with one-click retry backed by help-centre documentation of the underlying platform errors. I found no public information on link shortening with UTM rules, and the only rendering previews I can see are the Instagram and TikTok grids. 1 3 4 10 11 12
The Brand Governance Officer
Bulk CSV import, queue-style slot filling with evergreen horizons up to a full year, per-network captions, a drag-and-drop calendar and grid planner, and a rejection alert with one-click retry plus a refresh-connection fix put scheduling in dependable territory. We found no public information on link shortening with UTM rules or previews matching each network's actual rendering, which is what separates the solid from the top band. 1 3 4 10 11
The Analyst
Cross-network publishing with per-network captions, a drag-and-drop calendar, drafts, first-comment automation, bulk and CSV upload, default slots with a full-year evergreen horizon, stories, reels and shorts, and rejection alerts with one-click retry are all confirmed. We found no public information on link shortening with UTM rules, and the preview evidence reaches only an Instagram and TikTok grid view rather than each network's rendering. 1 3 4 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
Bulk CSV import, evergreen scheduling up to a year ahead, Reels and Stories, and an alert with one-click retry when a network rejects a post are all documented. We found no public information on link shortening with UTM rules or per-network previews beyond the Instagram and TikTok grid previews, which caps this below the bulk-plus-previews level. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
Bulk upload, a CSV importer, queue-style default time slots and a year-long evergreen horizon are all documented, and a rejected post comes back with an alert, a one-click retry and a help-centre article naming the platform error. I found no public information on link shortening or UTM rules, and render previews are evidenced only for the Instagram and TikTok grids, which is what keeps this short of dependable-at-volume territory. 1 3 4 10
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
I live in the inbox and this one leaves me cold: the only comment handling evidenced anywhere is comments counted as a metric in the analytics pages, and while the help centre carries articles asking whether you can manage a social inbox and read and send direct messages, we found no public information confirming a unified inbox, assignment, saved replies, moderation or conversation history. For my half of the job this reads as native-app territory. 5 6 8
The Agency Lead
I found no public information confirming a unified inbox, comment moderation, or direct-message handling; the captured help pages pose the questions about a social inbox and reading or sending direct messages but record no capability, and nothing appears on assignment, statuses, saved replies or per-person history anywhere in the captures. 5 6
The Brand Governance Officer
Two help pages on managing a social inbox and on reading or sending direct messages were captured, but neither yielded a single confirmed fact about an inbox, assignment, statuses or conversation history. We found no public information on a unified queue, so I score by absence: the only engagement evidence anywhere is engagement counts inside the analytics. 5 6 8
The Analyst
We found no public information on an inbox, a unified queue, assignment, conversation history or direct-message handling; the help centre carries articles titled on managing a social inbox and on reading and sending direct messages, but no answer text was captured, so nothing can be credited here. 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on any unified inbox, assignment, status or direct-message handling; the help-centre pages on managing the social inbox and reading direct messages yielded no captured detail. The privacy policy does confirm engagement data and historic posts are collected from connected accounts, so community comments arrive as personal data this vendor processes with no stated answer on how they are handled. 2 5 6
The Skeptic
The help centre carries articles titled 'Can I manage my social inbox' and 'Can I read and send direct messages', but the captured pages yield no confirmed capability statements either way — I found no public information on a unified queue, assignment, conversation status, notes or per-person history. The only engagement handling visible anywhere is comment counts sitting inside the analytics pages. 5 6 8
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
There is real substance here — per-network post and account metrics covering all posts not just scheduled ones, follower demographics by age, gender and location, top posts, follower trends over time, and one-click export to PNG, SVG and CSV to hand a client. We found no public information on retention beyond the platforms' own windows, competitor benchmarking, white-label reporting or combined paid and organic, and the captured pages give different lists of which networks analytics covers. 3 7 8
The Agency Lead
Per-network metrics run deep — impressions, reach, saves, follower age, gender and locations, plus a best-time heat map built from the account's own followers — and reports download as PNG, SVG or CSV to hand to clients. I found no public information on white-label client reports, cross-network comparison, competitor benchmarking or scheduled delivery, and the captured pages give different figures for which networks analytics covers. 3 7 8
The Brand Governance Officer
Per-network post and account metrics, follower age, gender and location demographics, a best-time heat map, top posts and PNG, SVG and CSV exports are all evidenced; the captured pages give different figures for how many networks analytics covers, with detailed metrics shown for four. We found no public information on competitor benchmarking, scheduled exports or white-label client reporting, so this sits between basic metrics and the mid band. 3 7 8
The Analyst
Per-network post and profile metrics with audience demographics, a follower-online heat map, one-click export as PNG, SVG or CSV, and coverage of posts not published through the tool are confirmed, though the captured pages give different figures for which networks analytics covers. We found no public information on retention beyond the networks' own windows, documented normalisation of differently-defined metrics, competitor benchmarking, white-label reporting, scheduled exports or UTM-based attribution into web analytics. 3 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
Cross-network metrics sit in one dashboard with follower trends over time, follower age, gender and location demographics, top posts by engagement, reach and clicks, and one-click export in CSV, PNG or SVG. We found no public information on competitor benchmarking, scheduled exports, white-label client reporting or custom dashboards, and no retention statement specific to the analytics archive. 7 8
The Skeptic
Per-network post and account metrics, audience demographics, a best-time heat map, analytics covering posts not published through the tool, and one-click exports to PNG, SVG and CSV are all documented. The captured pages give different figures for which networks analytics covers, and I found no public information on competitor benchmarking, scheduled exports, white-label client reporting or retention beyond the networks' own windows. 3 7 8
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
Three roles — admin, publishing, read only — and a single approval hop: any team member creates posts for approval, Full Publishing or Admin approve, and a Pending Approval toggle rounds them up, with multi-client dashboards on top. We found no public information on multi-step chains, comments on drafts, an activity log or content locking after approval, so this is a light guardrail rather than a governance trail an auditor could follow. 1 3 9
The Agency Lead
There is a single approval step — any team member can submit, only Full Publishing or Admin roles can approve, tracked through a Pending Approval toggle — with coarse admin, publishing and read-only roles, and a dashboard that groups several clients each with their own calendar. I found no public information on multi-step chains that include the client, comments on drafts, content locking after approval, per-account permission granularity or an audit trail, which is what I would need before entrusting it with twelve brands. 1 3 9
The Brand Governance Officer
Any team member can create posts for approval and only members with Full Publishing or Admin permission can approve — a genuine approval step with named roles — and the multi-client dashboard gives agencies per-client separation. We found no public information on an audit trail of edits and publications, multi-step approval chains, comments on drafts, or content locking after approval, which is precisely what I would need before an agency touches a brand account. 1 3 9
The Analyst
Roles described as admin, publishing and read-only, a single-step post approval with a pending-approval filter that any team member can submit into, multi-client dashboards, and a statement that credentials are never stored in plain text are confirmed. We found no public information on multi-step approval chains, comments on drafts, content locking after approval, an activity log or audit trail, or whether approval is enforced before anything reaches a network. 1 3 9
The Data Protection Officer
Three coarse roles, a single approve-or-disapprove step with a pending-approval filter, and a multi-client dashboard with approval workflows are documented. We found no public information on an activity log or audit trail of who approved and published what, comments on drafts, per-network role limits, or content locking after approval — an accountability gap if a regulator asks who released a post. 1 9
The Skeptic
Separate users with admin, publishing and read-only roles, a single approve-or-disapprove step restricted to Full Publishing and Admin, a pending-approval queue and per-client calendars in one dashboard are documented. I found no public information on multi-step approval chains, comments on drafts, content locking after approval, or an activity log showing who changed and published what. 1 3 9
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
Eight to nine networks through official APIs, Meta Business Partner status, and a help centre that genuinely documents failure modes — Facebook permission errors, connection refresh, video formats per network — which is what I want when something breaks. We found no public information on an integration status page, advance notice of deprecations, or full export of the publishing and engagement archive, and the captured pages give different lists of supported networks. 3 10 11 12
The Agency Lead
Nine networks including the newer Bluesky and Threads, every connection through official APIs, Meta Business Partner status, and help-centre documentation of publishing errors and connection recovery — a solid official-API story. I found no public information on a public integration status page, advance notice of deprecations, or export of the full publishing and engagement archive; portability is described only as an electronic file of account information. 2 3 10 11 12
The Brand Governance Officer
Eight or nine networks including newer ones like Threads and Bluesky, every connection through official APIs, Meta Business Partner status, and help pages documenting Facebook permission failures and connection troubleshooting show per-network limitations written down. We found no public information on a public integration status page, advance notice of deprecations, or a self-serve archive export — removal of a connected account is stated to be permanent and non-reversible. 2 3 10 11
The Analyst
Official API use across Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, LinkedIn, X, Pinterest, YouTube Shorts, Bluesky and Threads, official Meta Business Partner status, and help articles explaining publishing failures such as missing Facebook permissions are confirmed. We found no public information on a public integration status page, a changelog for platform behaviour changes, advance notice of deprecations, or self-service export of the publishing and engagement archive beyond a portability file on request. 1 2 3 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
Every connection is stated to use the official network APIs, Meta Business Partner status is claimed, coverage spans nine networks including Threads and Bluesky, and the help centre documents connection-error troubleshooting. We found no public information on an integration status page, advance notice of deprecations, or export of the full publishing and engagement archive beyond a portability request for account information. 2 3 10 11
The Skeptic
The captured pages give different figures for the network list — one shows eight networks, another nine including Threads and YouTube Shorts — and the vendor states every connection uses official APIs, with Meta Business Partner status and YouTube API compliance named, which is the posture I want to see. I found no public information on a changelog, an integration status page, advance notice of deprecations, or full self-serve export of the publishing archive; the only export is an on-request electronic file, and removing a social account permanently deletes all historic content from the service. 2 3 4 10 11
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
The contracting entity and controller is Hopper HQ Ltd in the UK, and the only hosting detail in the privacy policy is that providers are signed up to Privacy Shield; we found no public information on data residency or any subprocessor list. Before pointing a European community's comments and follower data at this, I would need to know far more about where it is processed and by whom. 2 3
The Agency Lead
The contracting entity is at least named — Hopper HQ Ltd in Birmingham — but it is a UK entity rather than an EU one, and I found no public information on where the archive and message content from the networks are hosted or which subprocessors touch them. The privacy policy's statement that hosting providers are signed up to Privacy Shield points away from EU hosting rather than towards it. 2 3 7
The Brand Governance Officer
The contracting entity is Hopper HQ Ltd, a UK company at a Birmingham address; hosting is unstated beyond a note that hosting providers are signed up to Privacy Shield, and we found no public information on data residency or any subprocessor list. A non-EU entity with unstated hosting and unnamed subprocessors is the bottom band, whatever GDPR-aligned wording the privacy policy carries. 2 3
The Analyst
The controller is named and addressed — Hopper HQ Ltd of Birmingham — but that entity sits in the UK rather than the EU, and the only hosting reference is providers signed up to Privacy Shield. We found no public information on hosting locations, a subprocessor list, or a DPA addressing network message content, while support tooling is stated to run on Intercom. 2 3 12
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity and controller is Hopper HQ Ltd in the UK — outside the EU — and the only hosting statement captured is that hosting providers are signed up to Privacy Shield, with no location named and no subprocessor list published. There is no data processing agreement or statement addressing the personal data arriving from the networks in comments and messages, though the policy does assert processing only on a legal basis under applicable EU laws. 2 3
The Skeptic
The controller is Hopper HQ Ltd, a UK entity outside the EU, hosting location is unstated — the only hosting statement is a Privacy Shield reference in a policy effective May 2018 — and I found no public information on a subprocessor list; the sole processor visible is an incidental 'we run on Intercom' on the help pages. We also found no public information on a DPA addressing the personal data arriving from the networks in comments and messages. 2 12
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
The basis is stated publicly — plans sized by the number of connected social accounts with unlimited posts, and a 14-day trial where card details are taken at signup but charged only when it ends. But no actual price figures, tier boundaries or billing terms appear in what was captured, so a team cannot compute an annual invoice, and the captured pages give different signals on whether profiles are unlimited. 1 3 4
The Agency Lead
The pricing basis is public — plans sized by the number of connected social accounts with unlimited posts, and a 14-day trial with card details taken at signup — but no price figure for any tier, extra-account cost, minimum term or VAT treatment appears on the captured pages, so I cannot compute an invoice for twelve client brands. The captured pages also give different figures on limits, one describing unlimited profiles and team members while another sizes plans by connected accounts. 1 3 4 12
The Brand Governance Officer
Plans are said to be sized by the number of social accounts connected with unlimited posts, and a 14-day card-required trial is stated — but the captured pages give different figures for how plans are sized, with one page describing unlimited profiles and team members for agencies. We found no public price figures, no per-tier account limits, and no statement of the tier where approvals and the inbox begin, so no annual invoice can be computed from these pages. 1 3 12
The Analyst
The pricing basis is public — plans sized by connected social accounts with unlimited posts, a 14-day trial with card taken at signup — but we found no public price figures, tier boundaries, account or seat limits, or the tier where approvals appear, and the captured pages give different figures for whether profiles and team members are unlimited. No annual invoice is computable from what is shown. 1 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing basis is public — plans sized by the number of connected social accounts with unlimited posts — and a 14-day trial with card details at signup is stated. We found no public price figures, tier boundaries, billing period or VAT treatment in the captured pages, so a team cannot compute its annual invoice from public information alone. 1 4
The Skeptic
The pricing basis is stated publicly — plans sized by connected social accounts with unlimited posts, and a 14-day trial with card details taken at signup and charged only after it ends. No price figures, tier boundaries, or the tier where approvals and the inbox sit were captured anywhere, so a team cannot compute an annual invoice from the captured pages. 1 4 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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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 Hopper HQ
Is Hopper HQ European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Hopper HQ is based.
Where does Hopper HQ store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Hopper HQ have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Hopper HQ?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Swat.io (3.5/5), Hootsuite (3/5) and Agorapulse (3/5) highest among the other 28 Social Media 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 Swat.io (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Hopper HQ alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 6 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
- 3 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 hosting 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
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Publishing & calendar — found from sitemap www.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Publishing & calendar — found from sitemap help.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Engagement & community inbox — found from sitemap help.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Engagement & community inbox — found from sitemap help.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Analytics & reporting — found from sitemap www.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Analytics & reporting — found from sitemap help.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Approvals, roles & brand safety — found from sitemap help.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Approvals, roles & brand safety — found from sitemap help.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Network coverage & API resilience — found from sitemap help.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Network coverage & API resilience — found from sitemap help.hopperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →