whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Social Media Marketing

Ocoya

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

Ocoya: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Ocoya: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

Ocoya alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Counts the network logos, then asks which are official API integrations and what each one cannot do. Has watched a platform change break a feature overnight, and wants to know what the vendor did last time and whether the archive survived it.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Skeptic
Publishing & calendar 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Engagement & community inbox 2 of 5 2 of 5
Analytics & reporting 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Approvals, roles & brand safety 3 of 5 3 of 5
Network coverage & API resilience 3.5 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 3 of 5 3 of 5

Publishing & calendar

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Engagement & community inbox

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Analytics & reporting

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Approvals, roles & brand safety

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Network coverage & API resilience

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about Ocoya? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (3)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.ocoya.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.ocoya.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Publishing & calendar — found from sitemap www.ocoya.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →