Buffer, Hootsuite, and Tesselith all do the same basic job — schedule and publish social posts from one place — but the pricing model and network coverage differ enough that picking wrong is expensive, not just inconvenient. Here's what each one actually costs, what it covers, and where the gaps show up.
Tesselith: broad coverage, honest pricing
Tesselith prices per workspace rather than per seat or per channel, with network coverage that extends past the usual suspects into Bluesky, Mastodon, Discord, Telegram, Dev.to, and Hashnode alongside the core platforms — 15 marketing-facing networks in total. Client approvals with a dedicated portal and evergreen/RSS automation are included rather than gated behind a premium tier, and there's a real free plan rather than a time-boxed trial.
Buffer: priced per channel
Buffer is a clean, uncluttered scheduler with a free plan (3 channels, 10 posts each). The catch is its pricing model: it charges per connected channel, not per plan. A brand running Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, X, and TikTok is paying for five separate channel connections, and that adds up fast — Essentials runs $5-6 per channel monthly, which means a modest 5-channel setup is already $25-30/month before adding a second brand or client, and it keeps climbing from there. Network coverage (around 9 platforms) stops short of Bluesky and Mastodon, and doesn't reach developer/community platforms like Dev.to, Hashnode, or Discord at all. Approval workflows are gated behind its Team tier.
Hootsuite: priced per seat, built for enterprise
Hootsuite's higher tiers add social listening, custom approval chains, and integrations built for large marketing organizations. That comes at enterprise pricing: Standard starts at $99 per seat per month on annual billing, and Enterprise pricing (where the real listening and workflow depth lives) runs into the thousands to tens of thousands annually depending on team size. For a small team or solo operator, that's a lot of spend for a listening and workflow suite most of it goes unused.
See the full Tesselith vs Buffer comparison →
See the full Tesselith vs Hootsuite comparison →
Side-by-side on the things that actually matter
Pricing model
Buffer charges per channel, which scales badly for multi-account setups. Hootsuite charges per seat, which scales badly for a team even if each person only needs light access. Tesselith charges per workspace with bundled channels, which scales more predictably for both a growing multi-channel brand and a small team sharing access.
Network coverage
Buffer covers roughly 9 core networks. Hootsuite covers around 10. Tesselith covers 15 marketing-facing networks (11 live today, 4 more — TikTok, Pinterest, Reddit, Hashnode — awaiting their own platform approvals), including several the other two don't reach at all.
Approvals and client work
Buffer's approval workflow is gated behind its Team tier. Hootsuite has approval chains, but they're built for large internal teams rather than external clients specifically. Tesselith's client portal is designed around showing drafts to someone outside the workspace entirely — no login required on their end — and is included rather than an upsell.
The actual bottom line
Buffer only makes sense if you're staying under 2-4 channels indefinitely and never need approvals — the moment either of those changes, its per-channel pricing turns into the most expensive option of the three. Hootsuite only makes sense if social listening at enterprise scale is a genuine, budgeted requirement, not a nice-to-have; short of that, its per-seat pricing buys a lot of capability that goes unused.
For most teams and creators comparing these three — broad network coverage, client approvals, and automation included, priced per workspace instead of per seat or per channel — Tesselith is the one built for exactly that, without the enterprise price tag or the per-channel penalty for scaling up.