Social Media Marketing
Swat.io
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Swat.io GmbH · swat.io
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.
Swat.io at a glance
- Vendor
- Swat.io GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Europe and the EU source, captured 19 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Swat.io 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Swat.io, a social media management tool from Swat.io GmbH of Vienna, scores strongest on the engagement inbox, collaboration governance and pricing transparency and weakest on publishing. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 2 Sep 2026 to 19 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 20 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Swat.io, a social media management tool from Swat.io GmbH of Vienna, scores strongest on the engagement inbox, collaboration governance and pricing transparency and weakest on publishing. Judges credited one inbox queueing comments, mentions, direct messages and Facebook page ratings across ten channels, per-workspace and per-channel permissions with an external approval portal that needs no reviewer account, and fully priced tiers — Small at €39, Medium at €89, Large at €199 monthly. Publishing scored low because judges found no public information on what happens when a scheduled post fails overnight, or on bulk upload, queue-based scheduling or UTM link rules. The only flagged disagreement is platform coverage: the analyst scored 7 for ten networks reached through official APIs and published developer documentation, while the skeptic scored 4 because official-API statements name exactly two networks, Facebook and Instagram, and the captured pages give different figures for which networks publish. Sovereignty credits AWS Frankfurt hosting and an ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certificate but finds no published subprocessor list.
Speaks for it
- Comments, mentions, direct messages and Facebook page ratings land in one inbox across ten channels, with assignment, internal notes, reply templates and automated tagging and hiding.
- Permissions are assignable per workspace and channel — six types on higher tiers, including a read-and-feedback role the vendor names for the legal department — and external reviewers approve through a portal without their own account.
- Small, Medium and Large tiers are priced at €39, €89 and €199 monthly with published user, channel and workspace limits, extras at €20 per user, €25 per social account and €30 per workspace per month, a stated 10 percent annual saving and prices excluding VAT.
- A 21-day trial requires no payment information and carries no automatic renewal.
- Data is stored with AWS in Frankfurt on ISO 27001 and BSI C5 certified infrastructure, under an ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certificate covering the whole platform, with a GDPR data processing agreement in German and English.
Held against it
- We found no public information on failure notifications or retry when a scheduled post fails overnight, or on bulk upload, queue-based scheduling or UTM link rules.
- The captured pages give different channel lists for publishing, and official-API statements name exactly Facebook and Instagram.
- We found no public information on a complete subprocessor list, and third-party AI models are confirmed in use without a named provider or processing location.
- Publishing is always actioned by the team rather than fired by an approval status, and a post's final status can be changed again by anyone with approval rights.
- We found no public information on white-label client reporting, UTM-based attribution into web analytics, SLA timers or escalation into a helpdesk.
Best for
- You manage high comment and message volume across many networks and need one queue with assignment, internal notes and cross-platform person profiles.
- Your legal department needs a read-and-feedback role and your external reviewers approve through a portal without their own account.
- You want to compute most of your invoice from public prices, from Small at €39 to Large at €199 monthly plus à-la-carte extras.
- You deliver scheduled PDF or Excel reports to stakeholders from custom dashboards built from 45-plus widgets.
Avoid if
- You need approval enforced as a gate before anything reaches a network and content locked after approval — publishing is always actioned by the team and the final status can be changed again by anyone with approval rights.
- You can sign only with a published subprocessor list and named AI model providers or locations — third-party models are confirmed in use and we found no public information naming them.
- You must budget the top tiers in advance — Agency is a from-price of €599 monthly, Custom, Premium Insights and Monitoring are quoted on request, and we found no public statement of a minimum term.
- You need one authoritative published channel list before rollout — the captured pages give different figures for which networks publish.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Publishing & calendar | 2.5 of 5 |
| Engagement & community inbox | 4 of 5 |
| Analytics & reporting | 3.5 of 5 |
| Approvals, roles & brand safety | 4 of 5 |
| Network coverage & API resilience | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 4 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
The editorial calendar with day, week, month and list views, drafts, per-channel duplication with one-click AI adaptation, and Stories and Reels supported on Facebook make this a real working surface. But I found no public information on failure notifications or retry when a scheduled post goes out at 3am, nor on drag-and-drop, first-comment variants, bulk import or link shortening with UTM rules in the publisher. 6 7 14
The Agency Lead
The editorial calendar with day, week, month and list views, drafts with approval statuses, one-click per-network adaptation through AI, formats up to Stories, Reels and carousels, and real-time desktop and mobile previews make the calendar a real working surface. I found no public information on failure notifications with a retry, on bulk upload or CSV import, or on link shortening with UTM rules, which caps it below the dependable-at-volume level. 6 7 14
The Brand Governance Officer
Scheduling with a proper editorial calendar, per-network adaptation of captions at the click of a button, drafts and channel-accurate previews are all documented, and Stories and Reels are supported where the platforms allow. I found no public information on bulk upload, queue-based scheduling, link shortening with UTM rules, or what happens when a scheduled post fails overnight — and for a corporate account that silence is the whole risk. 6 7 14 15
The Analyst
The editorial calendar works as a real surface — day, week, month and list views, assignment, duplication, automatic publishing while offline, per-channel AI adaptation of captions, real-time desktop and mobile preview, and Stories and Reels where the network allows. We found no public information on bulk CSV import, queue-based scheduling, UTM rules behind the URL shortener, or how a failed scheduled post is surfaced and recovered. 6 7 9 14
The Data Protection Officer
The editorial calendar with day, week, month and list views, drafts, per-channel AI adaptation, Stories, Reels and 360° formats, and channel-accurate previews carry most of what a working publisher needs. We found no public information on bulk upload, evergreen queues, best-time suggestions, or any notification and retry when a scheduled post fails overnight. 6 7 14
The Skeptic
An editorial calendar with day, week, month and list views, one-click per-network adaptation of captions, drafts with suggested and approved statuses, and a composer covering stories and reels with channel-accurate previews — that is a working surface, not a toy. But I asked what happens when a scheduled post fails overnight and the public pages are silent on it, and we found no public information on bulk or CSV import, queue-based scheduling or UTM link rules either. 6 7 13 14
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
This is close to my dream queue: comments, mentions, private messages and page ratings in one inbox across ten channels including WhatsApp and Google Business, with one-click assignment, statuses, internal notes on the ticket, conversation history, and cross-platform person profiles via the mini CRM. Saved reply templates, two AI answer suggestions per ticket, sentiment and mood-based prioritization, hide/block/delete moderation and keyword automations that tag and allocate on their own push it toward a service desk; I found no public information on SLA timers or escalation into a helpdesk. 8 9 14 15
The Agency Lead
Comments, mentions, private messages and page ratings land in one queue with assignment, statuses, tags, search, a per-ticket log and a conversation history, and WhatsApp and Messenger bring direct messages in where the APIs allow. Saved reply templates, mood- and sentiment-based prioritisation, hide, delete and block actions plus automations that tag, allocate and hide on their own, and a mini CRM linking a person's profiles across platforms, put this near service-desk level; I found no public information on SLA timers or response-time reporting. 8 9 14 15
The Brand Governance Officer
Comments, mentions, private messages and Facebook page ratings land in one queue with assignment, statuses, internal notes and the linked conversation history, plus hide-and-block moderation, sentiment flags, reply templates and rules that tag, assign and hide automatically. I found no public information on SLA timers, escalation to a helpdesk or response-time reporting, which is what separates a shared inbox from a service desk. 8 9 14 15
The Analyst
One inbox across ten channels including private messages where the APIs allow, with assignment, statuses, an internal ticket log, reply templates, sentiment-based prioritisation, and automated rules that tag, hide and set mood on their own — plus a mini CRM linking one person's profiles across platforms, which is the per-person cross-network history I want to see. We found no public information on SLA timers or escalation into a helpdesk. 8 9 14 15
The Data Protection Officer
Comments, mentions, direct messages and even Facebook page ratings land in one queue across ten channels with assignment, statuses, internal notes, per-ticket history, automated tagging and hiding, sentiment-based prioritisation and cross-platform person profiles in the mini CRM. We found no public information on SLA timers or escalation into a helpdesk. From my desk: the per-ticket activity log and configurable automatic deletion of comments and messages answer the retention question I always ask. 8 9 14 4
The Skeptic
One inbox for comments, mentions, private messages and page ratings across ten listed channels, with assignment, statuses, internal notes, saved reply templates, sentiment and mood flags, automatic tagging and hiding, and a mini-CRM linking one person's profiles across platforms. We found no public information on SLA timers, escalation to a helpdesk or response-time reporting, so it is a strong queue but not yet a service desk. 8 9 14 15
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
Insights consolidates eight networks into one dashboard with cross-channel comparison, custom dashboards from more than 45 widgets, paid-versus-organic filtering, metric definitions directly in the tool, and automated PDF or Excel reports delivered by email, with data storage up to unlimited on the Large plan. I found no public information on white-label client reporting or UTM-based attribution into web analytics. 6 10 11
The Agency Lead
Custom dashboards built from 45-plus widgets, automated PDF or Excel reports delivered to stakeholders on a schedule, cross-channel comparison across eight networks, paid-versus-organic filtering and metric definitions shown in the tool cover most of what a client report needs. I found no public information on white-label branding of reports, competitor performance benchmarking, or UTM-based attribution into web analytics, so reports still leave my hands edited rather than unedited. 10 11
The Brand Governance Officer
Performance data from all supported channels is consolidated into custom dashboards with paid-versus-organic filtering, metric definitions in the tool, automated email delivery and Excel or PDF export, with storage running from one year up to unlimited depending on the package. I found no public information on white-label client reporting or UTM-based attribution into web analytics, so the agency hand-over story is incomplete. 2 10 11
The Analyst
Insights consolidates eight channels into one dashboard with cross-network comparison, tag-based analysis, custom dashboards, automated PDF and Excel delivery, paid-versus-organic filtering, and — to their credit — metric definitions available directly in the tool rather than hidden. Historical retention is tier-capped at one year and two years before unlimited storage, so history is not independent of tier by design, and we found no public information on UTM attribution into web analytics or white-label client reporting. 2 6 9 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
Insights consolidates eight channels into dashboards with 45-plus widgets, cross-channel comparison, paid-versus-organic filtering, metric definitions available in the tool, and scheduled PDF or Excel reports — most of what an agency hands a client. Retention of stored data is tier-defined rather than uniformly full, and we found no public information on white-label reporting, competitor benchmarking or UTM-based attribution. 9 10 11
The Skeptic
Data is kept one to two years and unlimited on the large tier — beyond the platforms' own windows — with cross-network dashboards, forty-five plus widgets, paid versus organic filtering, metric definitions in the tool and scheduled PDF or Excel delivery. What an agency hands a client is where the pages go quiet: we found no public information on white-label client reporting, UTM attribution into web analytics or audience demographics over time, and competitor coverage appears only as a listening add-on on request. 6 9 10 11
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
Individual logins per person, six permission types assignable per workspace and channel — including a read-and-feedback role for the legal department — approval statuses with in-tool comments, an external portal where reviewers need no account, and an activity log of every change give this real governance teeth. Full access is unrestricted and publishing is always actioned by the team, so approval is not enforced before anything reaches a network, and I found no public information on content locking after approval. 6 12 13 15
The Agency Lead
Permissions sit at workspace and channel level with six assignable types, including an assignment-based feedback role aimed at a legal department, every change and internal comment is kept in the activity log, and the external portal lets clients approve without a Swat.io account via magic link — the client-in-the-chain setup I need. The final status can be changed again after approval rather than locked, publishing is always actioned by the team rather than enforced by the workflow, and I found no public information on configurable multi-step approval chains. 6 12 13 15
The Brand Governance Officer
The strongest part of the product: permissions are granular per workspace and channel with six types including a legal-department feedback role, external reviewers approve through a portal without needing an account of their own, every person logs in individually with two-factor authentication in every package, and an activity log records changes and internal comments on suggested posts. Two things hold it back: I found no public information showing approval is enforced before content reaches a network — the help pages state publishing is always actioned by the team — and none on locking content after approval, since the final status can be changed again by anyone with approval rights. 6 9 12 13
The Analyst
Six permission types assignable per workspace and channel — including an Assigned Feedback role the vendor itself gives a legal department as the example — individual accounts instead of shared logins, suggested/approved workflow with in-tool comments preserved in the activity log, and an external approval portal where reviewers need no account and a read-only role exists. Publishing always stays a human action rather than firing on final approval, and we found no public information on locking content after approval. 6 9 12 13 15
The Data Protection Officer
Permissions run to workspace and channel level with a role aimed at the legal department, each person has an individual account, approvals carry in-tool comments and a full activity log, and external reviewers approve through a portal without their own account. The captured pages show publishing stays in the team's own hands and an approved status can be changed again by anyone with approval rights, so pre-publication approval is a workflow rather than an enforced gate; we found no public information on multi-step chains or content locking after approval. 12 13 15
The Skeptic
Every person has an individual account with two-factor authentication in every package, permission types run from four at the medium tier to six higher up — set per channel or workspace, including an assignment-based feedback role the vendor itself names for the legal department — and drafts carry suggested and approved statuses with comments and a logged trail. An external approval portal with magic links and pending, approved and rejected tabs extends this beyond the team, though the final status stays changeable at any time by anyone with approval rights, and we found no public information on content locking after approval or multi-step approval chains. 6 9 12 13
Network coverage & API resilience
panel disagrees
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 Facebook and Instagram interfaces are stated outright, Facebook Marketing Partner and Preferred Marketing Developer status dates to 2012, and coverage reaches the newer networks including Bluesky and Threads — though the captured pages give different channel lists for publishing. I found no public information on per-network limitation documentation, an integration status page or advance notice of deprecations; ticket export by date and tags plus analytics export are the archive export I can see. 6 7 8 14 15
The Agency Lead
Official APIs are stated for the main networks, Facebook Marketing Partner status has been held since 2012, and publishing reaches ten channels including the newer Bluesky and Threads, with developer documentation public. I found no public information on documented per-network limitations, a public integration status page, advance notice of deprecations, or full export of the publishing and engagement archive, so resilience is claimed rather than shown. 6 7 14 15
The Brand Governance Officer
Ten networks including the newer Bluesky and Threads are covered, official API use and Facebook Marketing Partner status held since 2012 are documented, and dated product updates are published. I found no public information on an integration status page, advance notice of platform deprecations or documented per-network limitations; export is shown for tickets and analytics, and I found no public information on export of the publishing archive. 8 14 15 1
The Analyst
Ten networks reached through official APIs, Facebook Marketing Partner and Preferred Marketing Developer status held since 2012, published developer documentation, an integrations overview and a dated updates page. We found no public information on a public status page for integrations, advance notice of platform deprecations, or documentation of per-network limitations. 6 7 10 14 15 1
The Data Protection Officer
Official programming interfaces are named for Facebook and Instagram, the vendor cites Facebook Marketing Partner status since 2012, and coverage reaches the newer networks Bluesky and Threads, backed by developer documentation and a dated updates list. We found no public information on an integration status page, advance notice of deprecations, per-network limitation documentation, or full export of the customer's own publishing archive. 6 14 15
The Skeptic
I count ten networks across the channel lists while official-API statements name exactly two of them — Facebook and Instagram — backed by Facebook Marketing Partner status held since 2012, and the captured pages give different figures for which networks publish. The public update log lists product launches, not responses to platform changes. We found no public information on per-network capability limits, an integration status page, advance notice of deprecations, or export of the customer's own publishing archive; only ticket and analytics exports are evidenced. 6 7 8 14 15 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
An Austrian GmbH with a Vienna commercial register entry, data stored with AWS in Frankfurt named openly, ISO 27001:2022 certification for the entire platform, a GDPR data processing agreement in German and English, and configurable deletion routines for comments and messages make the chain largely European. I found no published subprocessor list, and the third-party AI models behind content and reply features have no stated location or safeguard. 3 5 14 15 4
The Agency Lead
The contracting entity is Swat.io GmbH in Vienna, hosting is named as AWS in Frankfurt under an ISO 27001 certification covering the whole platform, and a GDPR-conform data processing agreement in German and English plus a TOM document are published, with configurable deletion routines for comments and messages. Two holes hold it under the top band: I found no public information on a complete subprocessor list, and third-party AI models are confirmed in use without a named provider or processing location. 5 14 4
The Brand Governance Officer
The contracting entity is Swat.io GmbH of Vienna with hosting on named infrastructure — AWS in Frankfurt — an ISO 27001 certificate covering the whole platform and a DPA available in German and English, though the independently sourced attributes still mark data residency and subprocessor exposure as not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages. Third-party AI models are stated to be in use, and I found no public information naming the subprocessors or describing the legal basis for handling message content arriving from the networks. 3 5 14 4
The Analyst
Swat.io GmbH in Vienna as the contracting entity, data stored with AWS in Frankfurt on ISO 27001 and BSI C5 certified infrastructure, a published ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certificate covering the whole platform, a GDPR-conform processing agreement in German and English, a data protection officer, and configurable automatic deletion of comments and messages. The subprocessor chain beyond the hosting provider is not published — third-party AI models are in use and we found no public information naming their providers or locations. 3 5 14 15 4
The Data Protection Officer
An Austrian GmbH in Vienna with a commercial register entry at the Vienna commercial court is the contracting entity, hosting is named as AWS in Frankfurt under a published ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certificate for the whole platform, and there is a GDPR data processing agreement in German and English, a TOM document, a dedicated data protection officer and configurable automatic deletion of comments and messages — my core questions largely answered. What holds it back: we found no public subprocessor list, and the vendor confirms third-party AI models for content creation, reply suggestions and sentiment analysis without naming those models or where they process the text. 3 5 14 4
The Skeptic
An Austrian GmbH in Vienna with AWS hosting in Frankfurt named on the vendor's own pages, a DPA in German and English, a data protection officer, ISO 27001 and configurable automatic deletion of comments and messages — that is an EU chain with documents behind it. The chain is not closed: we found no public information on a complete subprocessor list or on where the third-party AI models that generate content and reply suggestions process their input, and ownership rests on the vendor's own bootstrapping claim. 3 5 14 15 4
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
Every core tier is priced with its user, channel and workspace limits, extras are à la carte at €20 per user, €25 per social account and €30 per workspace per month, the inbox and insights add-ons are priced per tier, prices are stated excluding VAT, and annual billing saves 10 percent. Monitoring and Premium Insights are only upon request, and I found no public information on minimum term. 2 6 9 10
The Agency Lead
Small at €39, Medium at €89 and Large at €199 monthly each state workspace, channel and user limits, and the add-on maths is public: €20 per user, €25 per social account and €30 per workspace per month, the Inbox add-on at €39, €89 or €199 monthly depending on tier, Insights at €79 monthly, annual billing saving 10%, all prices exclusive of VAT. Approval processes are shown from the Medium package and external approvals on Agency, so the tier where the client workflow starts is visible. Only Premium Insights, Monitoring and the Custom and Agency plans sit behind upon-request or from-pricing, which is what keeps full invoice computability just out of reach. 2 6 9
The Brand Governance Officer
Every priced tier shows user, channel and workspace limits with clear feature boundaries, the cost of an extra user, social account or workspace is published, VAT treatment and the annual saving are stated, and the tiers where approvals and the inbox apply are explicit and priced. The Custom plan and some add-ons are on request and I found no public information on a minimum term, so the annual invoice is computable only up to the priced tiers. 2 6 9 10
The Analyst
Every named Publisher tier carries a public price with user, channel and workspace limits, inbox add-ons are priced per tier, Insights is €79 additional per month, an extra user is €20 per month, an extra social account €25, an extra workspace €30, the annual saving is 10 percent, and VAT exclusion is stated — so an annual invoice is computable for Small through Large. Premium Insights for the Custom and Agency plans and the Monitoring add-on are on request, and we found no public information on minimum terms. 2 6 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Every core package is priced monthly in euros with its workspace, channel and user limits, approval processes are marked as starting in the Medium package, the Inbox and Insights add-ons carry prices at each package level, extras cost 20 euro per user, 25 euro per social account and 30 euro per workspace per month, a 10 percent annual saving and VAT treatment are stated, and the 21-day trial needs no payment data. The Agency package is a from-price and Premium Insights and Monitoring are quoted only on request; we found no public statement of a minimum term. 2 6 9 10
The Skeptic
Three tiers are priced to the euro with user, channel and workspace limits, extra users at 20€, channels at 25€ and workspaces at 30€ per month, inbox and insights add-on prices per tier, a ten percent annual discount and all prices excluding VAT — a team can compute most of its invoice from public pages, including where the inbox begins. The top rungs are conversations — Agency reads from €599 monthly while Custom, Premium Insights and Monitoring are on request — and we found no public information on a minimum term. 2 6 9 10
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Swat.io
Is Swat.io European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Swat.io as EU-Made.
Where does Swat.io store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention Europe and the EU as hosting locations, per the vendor’s page captured 19 Oct 2026.
Does Swat.io have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Swat.io?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Hootsuite (3/5), Agorapulse (3/5) and Metricool (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 Agorapulse (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Swat.io alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 2 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 — Ownership, Data residency, Subprocessors, 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.
- 51 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
- 47 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
- 15 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
- 7 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
- 4 integrations 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 legal 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
- 2 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 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
- 4 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. 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 swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Compliance and data protection swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Legal document index — AVV, TOM, ISO 27001 swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Publishing & calendar — found from sitemap swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Publishing & calendar — found from sitemap swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Engagement & community inbox — found from sitemap help.swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Engagement & community inbox — found from sitemap swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Analytics & reporting — found from sitemap swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Analytics & reporting — found from sitemap swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Approvals, roles & brand safety — found from sitemap help.swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Approvals, roles & brand safety — found from sitemap help.swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Network coverage & API resilience — found from sitemap swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Network coverage & API resilience — found from sitemap swat.io Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →