How uplika compares
Three publishing APIs an AI agent can talk to, next to ours. Every number here was read off their public docs on the date shown.
We built this page because we kept being asked the same question and did not want to answer it from memory. It is not a scoreboard. The row where we are behind is the first one on every table.
Anything we could not confirm in public documentation is marked as such rather than guessed. Where a competitor's own pages disagree with each other, we say so on their page.
What publishes today
Threads. The other channels are listed with their real limits so you can build against them now, but they are waiting on platform review and publishing to one is refused rather than dropped quietly. If you need a channel live this week, the products below cover more surface than we do today.
uplika vs Ayrshare
Ayrshare has no free tier; the entry plan is a 28-day trial and then $149 a month for one social profile. Its MCP server authenticates with the same API key the REST API uses, passed as a bearer header. Ours issues a token through an OAuth authorization server instead, so nothing is pasted into the agent.
| uplika | Ayrshare | |
|---|---|---|
| Channels listed | 4 | 13 |
| Publishing today | 13 | |
| Free tier | Yes | No |
| Paid starts at | Not confirmed | $149/mo |
| Billed per | Connected account | Active social profile |
| MCP server | Yes | Yes |
| Agent authentication | OAuth, client registers itself | API key in a header |
| MCP tools | 20 | 27 |
| Open source | No | No |
| Interface languages | en, ko | en |
Checked on 2026-08-10
uplika vs Postiz
Postiz is the only one here you can run yourself. It is AGPL-3.0 and the project states there is currently no feature difference between the hosted and self-hosted versions, though the cloud plans cap connected channels and self-hosting does not. Its MCP server exposes nine tools and offers both an API key endpoint and an OAuth one.
| uplika | Postiz | |
|---|---|---|
| Channels listed | 4 | 21 |
| Publishing today | 21 | |
| Free tier | Yes | No |
| Paid starts at | Not confirmed | $29/mo |
| Billed per | Connected account | Workspace |
| MCP server | Yes | Yes |
| Agent authentication | OAuth, client registers itself | API key or OAuth |
| MCP tools | 20 | 9 |
| Open source | No | AGPL-3.0 |
| Interface languages | en, ko | en |
Checked on 2026-08-10
uplika vs zernio
zernio is the closest to us in shape: usage-based per connected account, free for the first two, and a hosted MCP server that accepts OAuth. It is also listed in the official MCP registry. Its own pages count its channels as 14, 15 and 16 in different places and its tool count as 280+ or 496, so we cite the documentation figure and note the disagreement rather than picking one.
| uplika | zernio | |
|---|---|---|
| Channels listed | 4 | 16 |
| Publishing today | 16 | |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Paid starts at | Not confirmed | $6/mo |
| Billed per | Connected account | Connected account |
| MCP server | Yes | Yes |
| Agent authentication | OAuth, client registers itself | API key or OAuth |
| MCP tools | 20 | 496 |
| Open source | No | No |
| Interface languages | en, ko | en |
Checked on 2026-08-10
Prices and channel lists change. If that date looks old, trust their page over ours.