Social Media Marketing
Ocoya
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Ocoya · www.ocoya.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.
Ocoya at a glance
- Vendor
- Ocoya
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Ocoya 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Ocoya, from UAB Ocoya of Vilnius, Lithuania, is an AI social media platform that writes, designs, schedules and replies across networks. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Ocoya, from UAB Ocoya of Vilnius, Lithuania, is an AI social media platform that writes, designs, schedules and replies across networks. The bench scored it strongest on publishing, where a drag-and-drop calendar, bulk upload at up to a thousand posts per minute, RSS-fed queues, per-network caption versions and live character counts are documented, and on platform coverage, with twenty-eight listed connections including Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon — though the captured pages give different figures for the count, twenty-six against twenty-eight. Collaboration and governance held at 6: approvals run on every plan, posts wait on a one-click email decision, and decisions are logged. Weakest are analytics and reporting, documented in a single line with no named metrics or exports, and the engagement inbox, a named module with no public information on assignment or conversation history. Sovereignty runs 3-4, judges weighing a European contracting entity and a published Data Processing Addendum against processing stated as United States and worldwide; pricing transparency runs 5-6, the Starter tier's limits published without a price.
Speaks for it
- Publishing scored 7-8: bulk upload at up to a thousand posts per minute, RSS-fed queues, best-time suggestions and per-network caption versions with live character counts are documented
- Approvals run on every plan, with named reviewers, a one-click email decision, the post held until it clears, and every decision logged on the post itself
- Twenty-eight connections are listed — including Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon — alongside a service status page and a REST API with typed SDKs
- Team at $79 / month with 5 users and 20 social profiles and Agency at $199 / month with 20 users and 100 social profiles are published, each '+ VAT where applicable', with 'Yearly (2 months free)'
- A Data Processing Addendum is published incorporating standard contractual clauses, with the vendor acknowledging its processor role, a 5-day subprocessor objection window, and self-service data subject request tools at no additional cost
Held against it
- Analytics and reporting scored 2-3: measurement appears as a single line — 'Track performance and let your agent double down on what works' — with no public information on named metrics, exports or cross-network views
- The engagement inbox scored 3-4: a Social Inbox module and AI replies triggered by comments, DMs and mentions are shown, with no public information on assignment, saved replies or conversation history
- The Data Processing Addendum states customer data may be transferred and processed 'in the United States and anywhere else in the world', with no residency option offered, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations
- The Starter tier's limits (1 user, 5 social profiles, 300 credits) are listed without a price, we found no public information on the cost of an extra seat, profile or credit, and the trial terms state '7 days free, card required' with automatic renewal
- We found no public information on what happens when a post fails — on notifications, retry or platform-error surfacing — nor on link shortening with UTM tags
Best for
- You publish at volume across many networks and want bulk upload, RSS-fed queues, per-network caption versions and best-time suggestions on one calendar
- You want approval before publication enforced on every plan, with a logged decision trail and comment threads on drafts
- You build your own tooling and value a REST API with typed SDKs plus MCP access for assistants such as Claude and ChatGPT
- Your team fits the published tier counts — 5 users and 20 social profiles, or 20 users and 100 — and wants the price, VAT note and trial terms visible up front
Avoid if
- Your procurement requires data processing confined to the EU — the addendum states transfers to and processing in the United States and anywhere else in the world, with no residency option offered
- You must hand clients measurement reports — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your community team runs a live queue on assignment, saved replies and response-time tracking rather than AI replies fired by comment, DM and mention triggers
- You need your full annual cost before committing — the Starter tier's price and the cost of seats or profiles beyond the tier counts are not public
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Publishing & calendar | 3.5 of 5 |
| Engagement & community inbox | 2 of 5 |
| Analytics & reporting | 1.5 of 5 |
| Approvals, roles & brand safety | 3 of 5 |
| Network coverage & API resilience | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3 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.
0 — No publishing or scheduling; the product is a listening, analytics or inbox tool only.
3 — Posts scheduled to several networks from one composer, with a list or calendar of what is planned.
5 — A content calendar with scheduling across the main networks, per-network text and media variants, drafts, and post previews.
8 — Bulk upload or CSV import, queue or evergreen scheduling, best-time suggestions, link shortening with UTM tags, stories, reels or shorts where the API allows, and failure notifications with a retry.
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
The calendar is a real working surface — every scheduled post for every connected profile in one view, drag and drop between slots and days, live character counts against each network's real limit, and each network given its own version of the caption. Bulk upload is claimed at up to a thousand posts per minute, RSS feeds queue automatically, and the engine suggests peak engagement hours trained on audience data. We found no public information on what happens when a post fails — nothing on notifications or a retry — and nothing on link shortening with UTM tags or stories, which is why I stopped short of the top. 1 3
The Agency Lead
The publishing side is genuinely deep: a drag-and-drop calendar across every connected profile, bulk upload of a full campaign or an RSS-fed queue at up to a thousand posts per minute, per-network caption versions with live character counts against each network's limit, and best-time suggestions from audience data. What keeps this short of the top is that I found no public information on failure notifications with a retry, or on link shortening with UTM tags — the safety net I want before queuing work for twelve brands. 1 3
The Brand Governance Officer
The calendar is a genuine working surface — drag and drop between slots and days, per-network caption versions, live character counts against each network's real limit — backed by bulk upload and an RSS-fed queue at up to a thousand posts per minute, best-time suggestions and a natural inter-post delay. We found no public information on what happens when a post fails: no retry or surfaced platform error appears on the captured pages. 1 3
The Analyst
The calendar is a real working surface — every scheduled post across every connected profile on one calendar with drag-and-drop, per-network caption versions, live character counts against each network's real limit, bulk upload of a full campaign, RSS queuing, and best-time suggestions trained on audience data. We found no public information on link shortening with UTM tags or on what happens when a post fails, which keeps this short of dependable-at-volume publishing. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Bulk upload at up to a thousand posts per minute, RSS-fed queues, best-time suggestions from audience data, per-network caption versions and a live character count against each network's real limit take this well past a basic calendar. We found no public information on what happens when a post fails — no retry or platform-error surfacing is documented. 1 3
The Skeptic
Bulk upload is real and large — "up to a thousand posts per minute" with RSS queueing — and the composer counts characters against each network's real limit with per-network caption versions and best-time suggestions from an engine trained on audience data. What I could not find anywhere is failure handling: no notification, no retry, and no link shortening with UTM tags — the first question I ask when a network rejects a post overnight. 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 engagement features; comments and messages are handled only in each network's own app.
3 — Comments and mentions from connected networks shown in the tool, with replies sent from it.
5 — A unified inbox for comments and direct messages across the main networks, with replies, assignment to team members, and a read or done status.
8 — Saved replies, internal notes, SLA or response-time tracking, sentiment or priority flags, spam and hidden-comment handling, conversation history per person, 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 Social Inbox module is listed, and workflows can trigger on a new comment, DM or mention and react to comments with AI — so comments and mentions do reach the tool and replies go out from it. That is where the evidence stops: we found no public information on assignment or ownership, saved replies, read or done status, conversation history per person, or response-time tracking. As someone who lives in the queue, I can't credit an inbox I can't see the inside of. 1 2 3
The Agency Lead
A named Social Inbox module exists, workflow triggers fire on new comments, direct messages and mentions, and comments can be answered with AI replies — enough to see and respond in one place. I found no public information on assignment to team members, read or done status, saved replies, or response-time tracking, which is the service-desk layer my client teams actually live in. 1 2 3
The Brand Governance Officer
A Social Inbox module is listed, and workflows can trigger on new comments, direct messages and mentions with AI-written replies. We found no public information on assignment, saved replies, response-time tracking, moderation or per-person conversation history, so the service-desk end of the job is undocumented. 1 3
The Analyst
A social inbox is a named module, and workflows trigger on new comments, DMs and mentions with AI-generated replies to comments — so comments and messages do arrive in the tool and replies go out from it. We found no public information on assignment to team members, saved replies, response-time tracking, spam handling, or per-person conversation history, so this sits between a basic view and a true unified inbox. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
A Social Inbox module is offered, and workflows trigger on new comments, direct messages and mentions with AI generating the replies — so this personal data of third parties does arrive into the tool. We found no public information on assignment, saved replies, conversation history or retention on the archive of those conversations, nor on where the comment text travels for the AI to answer it. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
A "Social Inbox" module is named, and workflows trigger on new comments, DMs and mentions with AI replies, so comments and messages land in the tool and are answered from it. We found no public information on assignment to team members, a read or done status, saved replies, or per-person conversation history. 1 2 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 — No analytics at all; performance is read in each network's own app.
3 — Post and profile metrics (reach, engagement, followers) per connected network.
5 — Analytics across the connected networks in one view, reports exportable or scheduled as PDF or CSV, and post performance compared over a chosen period.
8 — Custom dashboards, white-label client reporting, competitor benchmarking, paid and organic combined where the API allows, UTM-based attribution into web analytics, metrics stored beyond the networks' own retention, 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
One marketing line — 'Track performance and let your agent double down on what works' — plus a per-post quality score against what drives engagement on each network. We found no public information on which metrics are shown, any cross-network view, or exports and scheduled reports. That is in-tool tracking asserted, not reporting an agency could hand a client. 1 3
The Agency Lead
The only analytics evidence is a single line — "Track performance and let your agent double down on what works." I found no public information on cross-network dashboards, PDF or CSV exports, scheduled reports, competitor benchmarking, or the white-label client reporting an agency hands over unedited. 1
The Brand Governance Officer
The whole of the public record on measurement is that the tool tracks performance, alongside a pre-publish quality score judged against each network's engagement drivers. We found no public information on cross-network dashboards, exports, scheduled reports or client-ready white-label reporting, and I would not hand a client anything built on this evidence. 1 3
The Analyst
Analytics appears only as a single line — track performance and let your agent double down on what works — without naming one metric, a cross-network view, or an export format. We found no public information on metrics stored beyond the networks' own retention windows, on normalisation of differently-defined metrics, or on UTM-based attribution into web analytics, which is what I would need to see before scoring higher. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Analytics is documented in a single line — track performance and let your agent double down on what works — which evidences measurement while saying nothing about which metrics, exports or retention beyond the platforms' own windows. For the record an operator must keep, the pages are silent on how long engagement data is held. 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages say "Track performance" and nothing more specific — no cross-network view, no export format, no competitor benchmarking or retention story. The post quality score is pre-publish advice, not measurement. 1
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 — Single-user product; no team access at all.
3 — Several team members on one account with an admin and a member role.
5 — Team members with roles or permissions per social account, an approval step before posts go out, and comments or notes on drafts.
8 — Client or brand workspaces with strict separation, configurable multi-step 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
Approvals are genuinely built in: any post can be held for named brand members, they get a one-click approve-or-reject email, the post is held until it clears, and every decision is logged on the post itself — on every plan, not gated behind a higher tier. Draft feedback lives in a comment thread on each post, with @-mentions that notify the right teammate. We found no public information on permission roles per social account, multi-step approval chains, content locking after approval, or an audit trail of edits and publications. 3
The Agency Lead
Approvals are real and, unusually, on every plan: any post can be routed to chosen members of the brand, held until a one-click email approve or reject clears it, with every decision logged on the post itself, plus comment threads and teammate mentions on drafts. But I found no public information on client workspaces with strict separation, configurable multi-step chains including legal review, or content locking after approval — the pieces a regulated client will ask me to prove. 3 1
The Brand Governance Officer
The core control I demand is present: a post under approval is held until it clears, reviewers are named members of the brand, every decision is logged on the post itself, approvals run on every plan, and feedback sits in a comment thread on each post. What is undocumented is the rest of the audit story — granular permissions per account, multi-step chains including legal review, content locking after approval, and a trail of who edited and released each item. 1 3
The Analyst
Approval before publication is genuinely enforced — reviewers get an email with one-click approve or reject and the post is held until it clears, every decision is logged on the post itself, and drafts carry comment threads with @-mentions of teammates. We found no public information on roles or permissions per social account, multi-step approval chains, or content locking after approval, so the audit story covers approvals but not the wider permission design. 3
The Data Protection Officer
Approval is requested from named brand members, the post is held until it clears via a one-click email decision, and every decision is logged on the post itself — an enforced gate with a record, on every plan rather than a higher tier. We found no public information on multi-step approval chains, per-account permissions, or a full audit trail of edits and publications. 1 3
The Skeptic
Approvals run on every plan, the post is held until a one-click email decision clears it, every decision is logged on the post, and drafts carry comment threads with @-mentions; the Agency tier is built for client brands with 20 users and 100 profiles. We found no public information on configurable multi-step approval chains, content locking after approval, or granular permissions per account. 1 3
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 — Connects to no social network, or only through means the vendor states are unofficial.
3 — Two or three major networks connected.
5 — The main networks (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube, X or Pinterest — most of them) connected, with the per-network capabilities or limitations documented in the help centre.
8 — Broad coverage including the newer networks (Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon or similar) through official APIs, a changelog or status page for integrations, advance notice of platform 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
The list covers the majors — Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube Shorts, X, Pinterest — plus newer networks including Bluesky, Threads and Mastodon; the captured pages give different figures for the count, '26 Networks' on one page against a list of 28 elsewhere. A status page and a public REST API with typed SDKs exist. We found no public information on official-API partner status, per-network capability documentation, export of the publishing and engagement archive, or advance notice of platform deprecations — and that last half is what resilience actually means. 1 2 3
The Agency Lead
Coverage is exceptional: Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube Shorts, Pinterest and Google Business alongside newer networks including Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon, plus a service status page, a REST API with typed SDKs and MCP access. The captured pages give different figures for the network count (26 versus 28), and I found no public information on advance notice of platform deprecations or self-serve export of the publishing and engagement archive — only a legal promise that data is returned or deleted at termination. 1 2 3
The Brand Governance Officer
Twenty-eight connections spanning the main networks and the newer ones — Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon — plus a service status page and a REST API with typed SDKs. We found no public information on advance notice of platform deprecations, per-network capability documentation, or export of the publishing and engagement archive, though the terms do promise return or deletion of all customer data at termination. 1 2 3
The Analyst
Twenty-eight integrations including the main networks and the newer ones — Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon — plus a service status page and a public REST API with typed SDKs. We found no public information on per-network capability documentation in the help centre, official partner status, advance notice of platform deprecations, or export of the customer's own publishing and engagement archive, so resilience is asserted by breadth rather than by commitment. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Twenty-eight connections are listed including the newer networks Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon, with a service status page and a REST API alongside; the captured pages give different figures for the count, twenty-six against twenty-eight. We found no public information stating the connections use official platform APIs, on advance notice of deprecations, or on export of the publishing and engagement archive during the contract — the processing terms only promise return of customer data at termination. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Twenty-eight integrations are listed — the majors plus Bluesky, Threads and Mastodon — though the captured pages give different figures for the network count (26 versus 28), and we found no public information on which connections are official API integrations, per-network capability documents, or advance notice of platform deprecations. A service status page exists, but the only archive protection I can find is the contractual right to have customer data returned on termination. 2 3
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. Dimensions the sources do not establish are unknown, not non-EU.
0 — Proven non-EU: a non-EU vendor and contracting entity with hosting stated outside the EU.
3 — One European element proven — an EU contracting entity or EU hosting stated — with the rest of the chain undocumented.
5 — An EU contracting entity and EU hosting both stated, and a data processing agreement offered.
8 — EU or DACH hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, a subprocessor list published with locations, 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 is proven European — UAB Ocoya, Vilnius, Lithuania, company code 305673313 — and a Data Processing Addendum is offered, with SCCs incorporated and a five-day window to object to new subprocessors. But the legal page states data may be transferred and processed 'to and in the United States and anywhere else in the world', with no residency options offered. A European entity plus a DPA, with processing affirmatively stated as US and worldwide, sits at the single-European-element level. 1 2 3
The Agency Lead
The contracting entity is UAB Ocoya in Vilnius, Lithuania, and a Data Processing Addendum incorporating SCCs is published — real European elements. But that addendum states customer data may be transferred and processed "in the United States and anywhere else in the world", and I found no public information on EU hosting options, named infrastructure, or a subprocessor list with locations. 1 2 3
The Brand Governance Officer
The contracting entity is UAB Ocoya in Vilnius, Lithuania, and a published data processing addendum incorporates the standard contractual clauses — a real European element. Against that, the terms state customer data may be transferred and processed in the United States and anywhere else in the world where the vendor, its affiliates or subprocessors operate, with no residency option offered. 1 2
The Analyst
The contracting entity is European — UAB Ocoya, Vilnius, Lithuania — and a data processing addendum incorporating the standard contractual clauses is offered, with the vendor acting as processor. That same addendum states customer data may be transferred and processed in the United States and anywhere else in the world where the vendor or its subprocessors operate, with no residency option offered, so EU hosting is not established and no subprocessor list with locations is published. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is European — UAB Ocoya of Vilnius — and a Data Processing Addendum is offered with standard contractual clauses and Ocoya acknowledging its processor role. The same addendum permits transfer and processing 'in the United States and anywhere else in the world where Ocoya, its Affiliates or its Sub-processors maintain data processing operations', and we found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations, on retention of the conversation archive, or on where the AI reply processing sends comment text. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Lithuanian — UAB Ocoya in Vilnius — and a Data Processing Addendum incorporating SCCs is published with a 5-day subprocessor objection window. But the same addendum states data may be transferred and processed in the United States and anywhere else in the world where the vendor, its affiliates or its subprocessors operate, and we found no public information on EU hosting options or a published subprocessor list with locations. 1 2 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 public "from" price or a single tier with its price.
5 — Prices per tier public with the billing period and the included social accounts or users stated.
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
Two tiers are priced publicly with billing period and limits: Team at $79 / month with 5 users, 20 social profiles and 1,500 credits, Agency at $199 / month with 20 users, 100 profiles and 5,000 credits, both '+ VAT where applicable', with 'Yearly (2 months free)' and trial terms spelled out including card requirement and auto-renewal. The Starter tier's limits are listed, but we found no public information on its price, on the cost of an extra profile or seat, or on any minimum term. One genuine mercy for buyers: approvals sit on every plan, so that boundary is clear from public pages. 1 3
The Agency Lead
Team at $79 / month (5 users, 20 social profiles, 1,500 credits) and Agency at $199 / month (20 users, 100 social profiles, 5,000 credits) are public with the billing period, a "+ VAT where applicable" note, yearly terms of two months free, and approvals confirmed on every plan. But I found no public information on the starter tier's price, the cost of an extra seat or social profile, or what a credit buys — so I cannot compute the real annual invoice for a twelve-brand roster from these pages alone. 1 3
The Brand Governance Officer
Team at $79 / month and Agency at $199 / month are published with user counts, social-profile counts, credits, monthly billing, a VAT note and a yearly option of two months free, and approvals are stated to be available on every plan. We found no public information on the price of an extra seat or profile beyond the tier limits, and the Starter tier's limits appear on the captured pages without a price. 1 3
The Analyst
Two tiers are priced publicly — $79 / month for 5 users and 20 social profiles, $199 / month for 20 users and 100 profiles — with monthly billing, VAT treatment, a 7-day card-required trial, and a yearly two-months-free option stated. The captured pages give the entry tier's limits but not its price, and we found no public information on the cost of an extra account or seat, so a team outside those counts cannot compute its real annual invoice. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The Team plan at $79 / month with five users and twenty profiles and the Agency plan at $199 / month with twenty users and one hundred profiles are published with billing period, '+ VAT where applicable', yearly billing at two months free, and approvals available on every plan. We found no public information on the Starter tier's price — its limits are listed without its cost — nor on the price of an additional seat, profile or credit. 1 3
The Skeptic
Team at $199 / month appears as "$79 / month" for Team and "$199 / month" for Agency, each stating the billing period, users, social profiles and credits, with "+ VAT where applicable", a yearly option at two months free, and approvals documented on every plan. We found no public price for the Starter tier on the captured pages and no public information on the cost of an extra seat or social profile beyond the tiers. 1 3
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Ocoya
Is Ocoya European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Ocoya is based.
Where does Ocoya store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does Ocoya have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Ocoya?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates Swat.io (3.5/5), HeyOrca (3.5/5) and Coosto (3.5/5) highest among the other 32 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: Ocoya alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 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.
- 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 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
- 1 product 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
Sources (3)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.ocoya.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.ocoya.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Publishing & calendar — found from sitemap www.ocoya.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →