8 Best Typefully Alternatives That Publish Video Too (2026)

Most posts about Typefully alternatives open by telling you Typefully has no API. That is wrong, and if you are the kind of person searching this phrase you will find out in about one click. Typefully runs a hosted MCP server, publishes an OpenAPI spec, and ships agent skills for Claude Code and Codex. I checked all of it myself this morning. Blotato is my top pick here, and the reason has nothing to do with whether Typefully can talk to your agent.

Quick Comparison: 8 Typefully Alternatives

Tool	Best For	Starting Price	Key Strength
Blotato	Solo operators whose agent posts video and text to the same 9 platforms	$29/mo	Nine platforms including TikTok and YouTube behind one API key at a flat price
Postiz	Developers who want the option to self-host the whole stack	$29/mo	Open source, with the REST API on every paid tier
Upload-Post	Repurposing pipelines pushing one video file to many platforms	$24/mo	The widest raw platform count, with a genuinely usable free tier
Post Bridge	Creators who want MCP plus unlimited posts on a flat plan rather than per channel	$29/mo	MCP agent connect included on every tier, Starter upward
Buffer	Writers adding two or three channels without leaving a free plan	$0, then $6/channel/mo	A free tier that does not expire, plus API access on every plan
Zernio	Teams that want X API charges itemised instead of averaged into a subscription	First 2 accounts free, then $6/account/mo	Per-account metering with X costs passed through at X's published rates
Publer	Anyone running many accounts who wants the per-account rate to fall	$5/mo first account	Falling per-account rate with every tenth account free, though X needs a paid plan
Metricool	Marketers who care more about reporting than about publishing throughput	From $20/mo billed annually	Analytics depth across brands, with X sold as a separate add-on

What Typefully Is Actually Good At

I want to be straight about this before I list a single alternative, because the honest version is more useful to you than a hit piece.

Typefully is one of the best writing environments for X threads that anyone has built. The editor is quiet, the thread preview is accurate, and the drafting flow genuinely gets out of your way. If your job is writing, that matters more than a feature checklist.

It is also not the closed box that most roundups describe, and it still publishes to X, which is more than some tools in this category can say after the past year of X scheduler shakeups. Typefully ships a public v2 API with an OpenAPI spec, a hosted MCP server at mcp.typefully.com/mcp that authenticates over OAuth, and an open-source agent-skills repository. Its own agent documentation names Claude, ChatGPT, Codex, Cursor, OpenClaw and Hermes as supported clients. I ran a JSON-RPC initialize against that endpoint on September 1, 2026 and it answered with an OAuth challenge, which is exactly what a live server should do.

So the question is not whether your agent can reach Typefully. It can, and the setup is clean.

The Real Ceiling: Reach, Not Access

Here is the sentence that decides this whole post, and it is Typefully’s own. Its AI-agents page says an agent can “schedule or publish content across X, LinkedIn, Threads, Bluesky, and Mastodon.”

That is five destinations. Typefully’s help center adds Substack Notes for a total of six places you can publish. Every one of them is text-first.

A first-class API pointed at a narrow surface is still a narrow surface. If your content is threads and posts, that is not a problem at all, and Typefully has the advantage of still being here, unlike Hypefury, which dropped X entirely. If a single recording turns into a YouTube upload, a TikTok, a Reel and a thread, then your agent hits a wall that no amount of API quality fixes, because TikTok and YouTube are not destinations Typefully publishes to.

That is the graduation point, and it is the reason most people leave. Worth knowing before you switch: Blotato is where I would send you, though if you are purely writing X threads and never touching video, staying put is the correct call and you can check the trial terms later.

One more thing that catches people. Typefully’s compare table lists five platforms and shows no Instagram row, while its own llms.txt file describes the product as covering Instagram. Two surfaces from the same vendor disagree, so I would confirm Instagram against your own account before planning around it.

Typefully Pricing in 2026, Because Every AI Answer Gets It Wrong

I probed ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity on Typefully’s price this morning. All of them were wrong, and not by a little. Gemini invented a $12.50 per month Creator tier and a $99 per month Agency plan. ChatGPT reported $8 per social set and a 15 post monthly cap.

None of those numbers exist. Here is what the live pricing page shows, read off the rendered page because Typefully renders its prices client side where a normal fetch cannot see them.

Plan	Price	Billing	What you get
Free	$0	Free for everyone	1 social set, 1 user, 10 posts per month, and Agents, API and MCP included
Creator	$99 per year	Annual billing only	1 social set, 1 user, 1,000 posts per month, X analytics, AI writing
Business	$18 per month per social set	Billed yearly	Up to 50 social sets, 1,500 posts per month, teams, higher API rate limits
Enterprise	Custom	Contact sales	Custom limits, priority support, security review

Two details are worth pulling out. Agents, API and MCP appear on the Free card, so the agent surface is not a premium upsell, though the API documentation returns a 402 saying a paid plan is required before creating drafts. Read that as connect and read on Free, write on a paid plan, and budget accordingly if an agent is going to publish through it. And Creator is annual billing only, so there is no month-to-month way onto it.

Eight Typefully Alternatives Worth Moving To

Every tool here had to clear one bar: it publishes to at least the text platforms Typefully does, plus destinations Typefully cannot reach, and it exposes an API or MCP server so an agent can drive it. I ranked them by how much reach they add for the money, not by how close they sit to Blotato. Prices were read off each vendor’s live pricing page or its own published rate card on September 1, 2026, with the billing toggle set to monthly unless I say otherwise.

1. Blotato: Best for solo operators whose agent posts video and text to the same platforms

Blotato’s home screen, where the same post can go to text and video platforms in one pass.

I am the founder of Blotato, so weigh this entry accordingly and judge it on the numbers rather than my enthusiasm. The reason it leads a Typefully list is narrow and specific: it publishes to nine platforms including TikTok and YouTube, the two video destinations Typefully definitively does not reach.

The agent surface is comparable to Typefully’s rather than better in kind. Blotato exposes 35 MCP tools over a hosted server and a REST API, with n8n and Make nodes. What differs is what sits behind the key. The limit worth knowing before you commit is file size: a single upload is capped at 400 MB on Starter, which is fine for short-form but tight if you are pushing long-form video, and lifting it means moving to Creator.

Pricing is flat, so the bill does not move when a platform reprices its API. That matters more than it sounds in a year when X moved to pay-per-use.

Pros:

• Nine platforms behind one key, including the video destinations Typefully does not publish to
• 35 MCP tools and a REST API on every paid plan, with n8n and Make nodes
• Flat monthly price that does not scale with posting volume

Cons:

• Starter caps a single media upload at 400 MB, so long-form video needs Creator or Agency
• Starter holds 200 queued scheduled posts, which a busy repurposing pipeline can hit
• The API needs a paid subscription, so there is no free way to prototype an agent against it

Pricing: Starter $29/mo for 20 connected accounts, Creator $97/mo for 40, Agency $499/mo for 100. Seven-day trial, cancel anytime.

Ideal for: A solo operator or small team whose agent has to hit video and text platforms from one workflow.

Bottom line: If the wall you hit with Typefully was TikTok and YouTube, this is the shortest path over it, and you can start a trial to test publishing from the app before committing. For the head-to-head on platform reach, analytics and agent tooling, I put the two side by side in detail.

Worth flagging honestly, because it applies to exactly the reader this post attracts: the seven-day trial excludes the API. Generating an API key immediately ends the trial and starts the paid Starter plan, so if you are here to test agent publishing, plan on subscribing rather than trialing.

2. Postiz: Best for developers who want the option to self-host the whole stack

Postiz leads with agent scheduling and lists its supported channels on the homepage.

Postiz is the open-source answer, and it is the only tool here you can run entirely on your own infrastructure at no license cost. Its hosted plans put the public API on every paid tier, and I confirmed its MCP server responds at api.postiz.com/mcp with an auth challenge.

The channel list runs well past the video platforms into Reddit, Mastodon, Discord and Telegram, so it is the widest destination set of anything here short of Upload-Post.

Pros:

• Genuinely open source, with self-hosting available at no license cost
• REST API, CLI and MCP on every paid tier rather than gated to the top plan
• Very broad channel list including developer and decentralised platforms

Cons:

• No free hosted plan, so the cloud version starts at a paid tier
• Self-hosting means you own the upgrades, the storage and the platform API approvals
• The interface is busier than Typefully’s, which is the tradeoff for the breadth

Pricing: Standard $29/mo for 5 channels, Team $39/mo for 10, Pro $49/mo for 30, Ultimate $99/mo for 100. Yearly billing brings Standard to about $23/mo. Self-hosted is free.

Ideal for: A developer who wants the code, or a team with a policy reason to keep publishing in-house.

Bottom line: Choose Postiz if self-hosting is a real requirement, because paying for a hosted tool you could have run yourself is the only way this one disappoints.

3. Upload-Post: Best for repurposing pipelines pushing one video to many platforms

Upload-Post is built around pushing one asset to a long list of destinations.

If your problem is strictly distribution volume, Upload-Post covers more destinations than anything else on this list and has a free tier you can actually build against. Its MCP server answered my probe at mcp.upload-post.com/mcp and exposes 40 tools.

There is one mechanic worth understanding, because it is the clearest evidence anywhere of how X’s pricing is reshaping these products. Upload-Post strips URLs from X posts by default so they bill at X’s lower per-post rate, and charges $19/mo for a link add-on if you need URLs in your X posts.

Pros:

• The widest platform coverage in this comparison
• Free tier with 2 profiles and 10 uploads per month, enough to test an integration
• Hosted MCP server with 40 tools, plus a straightforward REST API

Cons:

• The free tier excludes TikTok, which is often the exact platform people arrive for
• Posting links on X costs an extra $19/mo, capped at 50 link posts per month
• Thinner editing and drafting experience than a writing-first tool

Pricing: Free tier with 2 profiles and 10 uploads/mo. Basic $24/mo for 5 profiles, or about $16/mo billed annually.

Ideal for: An automated repurposing pipeline where one render fans out to a dozen places.

Bottom line: Pick Upload-Post when destination count is the whole job, but budget the link add-on if X posts in your workflow carry URLs.

4. Post Bridge: Best for creators who want MCP plus unlimited posts on one flat plan

Post Bridge positions itself around agent posting and lists ten platform icons on its homepage.

Post Bridge is aimed squarely at the same agent-first reader as this post, and its headline offer is real: “MCP agent connect” is listed on all four tiers, including the $29 Starter plan, so you are not pushed up a ladder to reach it.

Read the pricing page rather than the marketing page, though. Its /agents page advertises Starter at $29 plus a $5 API add-on for $34 a month, while the pricing page shows the API add-on available on Creator and above but not on Starter. So MCP starts at $29, and the REST API path realistically starts at $39 plus $5.

Pros:

• MCP included on every tier, starting at the entry plan
• Ten platform destinations including TikTok, YouTube and Google Business
• Unlimited posts on every plan, with a clean flat structure

Cons:

• The REST API add-on is not offered on the Starter tier despite marketing that implies otherwise
• No free plan, only a seven-day trial
• Its own llms.txt lists different tier names, prices and account counts than the live pricing page

Pricing: Starter $29/mo for 5 accounts, Creator $39/mo for 15, Growth $59/mo for 50, Pro $99/mo for unlimited. Annual billing takes Starter to $26.58/mo.

Ideal for: A creator who wants agent publishing at the lowest monthly number and does not need the REST API.

Bottom line: Post Bridge is the simplest flat plan that includes MCP at every tier, provided Starter covers your account count and you verify the add-on tier before budgeting for the API.

5. Buffer: Best for writers adding a couple of channels without leaving a free plan

Buffer’s per-channel model, with a free plan that covers three channels.

Buffer is the softest landing from Typefully because you can stay at zero dollars while you evaluate. The free plan covers three channels with ten scheduled posts each, and Buffer’s API is available on every plan including free.

Its per-channel pricing is tiered rather than flat, which people routinely get wrong. The first ten channels are $6 each monthly, then $4, then $3, then $1 above fifty. Eleven channels is ten at $6 plus one at $4, which is $64 rather than $44.

Pros:

• Free plan that does not expire, covering three channels
• API access on every tier, and a hosted MCP server that answered my probe
• Publishes to TikTok and YouTube Shorts, closing the main Typefully gap

Cons:

• Per-channel pricing gets expensive fast for anyone running many accounts
• YouTube support is Shorts oriented rather than full long-form publishing
• Advanced analytics and reporting sit behind the paid tiers

Pricing: Free for 3 channels. Essentials from $6/channel/mo billed monthly, or $5/channel billed annually. Team from $12/channel/mo.

Ideal for: A writer who wants to test video platforms without committing a budget.

Bottom line: Buffer is the right first step if you want to add TikTok cheaply, but run the channel math before you scale past ten.

6. Zernio: Best for teams that want X charges itemised rather than averaged

Zernio meters per connected account and publishes its X pass-through rates.

Zernio takes the opposite approach to everyone else here. Instead of a subscription that absorbs platform API costs, it meters per connected account and passes X’s charges through at X’s published rates with no markup.

Its own rate card lists posts at $0.015, posts containing a URL at $0.200, and reads at $0.005. That $0.200 line is the one to model, because most marketing posts carry a link, and a thousand link posts a month is $200 in X fees before the tool costs anything. I broke down how X’s pay-per-use rate card works separately, since it now drives pricing decisions across this entire category.

Pros:

• First two connected accounts are free, with no card required
• Every account includes scheduling, analytics, inbox and full API access with no feature tiers
• Cost is transparent rather than averaged into a flat fee

Cons:

• Usage-based billing means the bill moves when a platform reprices, which is the exact risk a flat plan removes
• Modelling monthly cost takes real work compared to a fixed number
• X analytics and inbox are opt-in rather than on by default

Pricing: Accounts 1 and 2 free, accounts 3 to 10 at $6/mo each, 11 to 100 at $3/mo each, 101 and up at $1/mo each. X API usage billed on top at X’s rates.

Ideal for: A team that would rather see exactly what X costs than have it hidden inside a subscription.

Bottom line: Zernio is the right call if you want itemised platform costs, and the wrong one if a predictable invoice matters more than transparency.

7. Publer: Best for anyone whose per-account rate should fall as accounts pile up

Publer’s calendar view, with its per-account pricing ladder.

Publer is the budget pick for a mid-sized account list, and the ladder is the point. Professional runs $5 for the first account and $4 for each one after, and the page states that for every nine social accounts the tenth is free.

The catch is specific and matters here. X is excluded from the free plan entirely, with Publer citing the cost of X’s API, so an X-first Typefully refugee cannot test Publer’s X publishing without paying.

Pros:

• A falling per-account rate, with every tenth connected account free
• Publishes to TikTok and YouTube, plus a long tail of other networks
• Strong bulk scheduling and post recycling

Cons:

• X cannot be connected on the free plan at all
• The API is limited to the Business tier rather than available lower down
• The pricing page defaults to the annual view, so the headline number is not the monthly rate

Pricing: Professional $5/mo for the first account and $4/mo per additional, billed monthly. Business $10/mo first and $7/mo per additional. Annual billing drops Professional to $4.

Ideal for: Someone running a dozen or more accounts where per-account cost dominates the decision.

Bottom line: Publer wins on price for a mid-sized list of accounts, as long as you are willing to pay before you can post to X at all. Past about a hundred accounts, Zernio’s $1 band and Buffer’s $1 channel rate go lower.

8. Metricool: Best for marketers who need reporting more than publishing throughput

Metricool leans on analytics and reporting across brands.

Metricool lands last because it solves a different problem than the one that brings people to a Typefully alternatives page. It is an analytics product that also publishes, and if reporting is what you actually need, it is stronger there than anything above it.

For an X-first reader the structure is awkward. X is not on the free plan, and on paid plans it is a $10 per month per account add-on on top of the subscription, because Metricool prices X access separately. So one X account means the plan plus the add-on, never the headline price alone.

Pros:

• Deep cross-brand analytics and reporting, which is its real strength
• Publishes to TikTok and YouTube alongside the text platforms
• Free plan available for a single brand

Cons:

• X costs $10/mo per account on top of the plan, and is unavailable on free
• The HTTP API is gated to the Advanced tier rather than included lower down
• Publishing throughput and limits are tighter than the publishing-first tools here

Pricing: Starter from $20/mo billed annually for up to 5 brands, rising to $36/mo for 10 brands, plus $10/mo per connected X account. Advanced, the tier that carries the API, starts at $53/mo billed annually. Metricool’s pricing page defaults to the annual view, so the monthly rate is higher than the figure it shows you first.

Ideal for: A marketer whose weekly report matters more than posting volume.

Bottom line: Metricool earns its place on reporting depth, but the X add-on makes it a poor fit if X is the platform you came here to keep.

How I Verified These Numbers

Every claim above was checked against a primary source on September 1, 2026, because this category rots fast and most competing roundups are quoting prices that no longer exist.

• Prices came from each vendor’s own pricing page or published rate card, such as buffer.com/pricing.md and zernio.com/pricing.md. Several of these pages render prices in JavaScript and default to annual billing, which is how wrong numbers spread.
• Every MCP claim was tested with a JSON-RPC initialize request, plus a nonsense-subdomain control to prove the endpoint was real rather than a wildcard DNS record.
• Where a vendor’s own surfaces disagreed, I said so in the entry rather than picking the flattering number.

Which One Fits Your Situation

• You write X threads and nothing else. Stay on Typefully. Nothing here beats its editor for that job, and switching costs you the thing you actually like.
• One recording becomes a YouTube video, a TikTok and a thread. Blotato, because those destinations sit behind the same key as the text platforms.
• You want the code and a self-hosting option. Postiz, provided you accept that you now own upgrades and platform approvals.
• Distribution count is the entire job. Upload-Post, budgeting the $19 link add-on if your X posts carry URLs.
• You want to test video platforms at zero cost first. Buffer, while you stay inside the three free channels.
• You want to see exactly what X costs you. Zernio, if a variable invoice is acceptable.
• You run many accounts on a tight budget. Publer, accepting that X requires a paid plan.
• Reporting matters more than posting. Metricool, with the X add-on priced in.

Sabrina’s Read on Leaving Typefully

Most people who search for Typefully alternatives are not unhappy with Typefully. They outgrew the surface it publishes to, which is a different problem and a much easier one to diagnose.

So the test is simple. Write down every place a single piece of your content needs to land this month. If that list is X, LinkedIn, Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon and Substack Notes, you already have the right tool and no roundup should talk you out of it. If TikTok or YouTube is on that list, no API quality closes the gap, and you need a tool whose destination list includes them.

That is the whole decision. If it points you toward broader reach, Blotato’s plans start at $29 a month for twenty connected accounts, and I would rather you check the platform list against your own before you switch than take my word for it.

Typefully Alternatives FAQs

Does Typefully have an API and an MCP server?

Yes to both. Typefully publishes a v2 REST API with an OpenAPI specification and runs a hosted MCP server at mcp.typefully.com/mcp that authenticates over OAuth. Its pricing page lists Agents, API and MCP on every plan including Free, though the API documentation returns a 402 indicating a paid plan is required before an agent can create drafts. Connecting and reading works on Free, writing needs a paid plan.

Does Typefully support TikTok or YouTube?

No. Typefully’s help center lists X, LinkedIn, Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon and Substack Notes as its publishing destinations, and its AI-agents page says an agent can publish across X, LinkedIn, Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon. TikTok and YouTube are not on either list. If you need video publishing, Blotato covers nine platforms including both, and Upload-Post covers more destinations still if raw platform count is what you are optimising for.

How much does Typefully cost in 2026?

Typefully’s live pricing page shows Free at $0 with 1 social set and 10 posts per month, Creator at $99 per year with annual billing only, Business at $18 per month per social set billed yearly for up to 50 social sets, and a custom Enterprise tier. Several AI assistants currently report different figures, including tiers that do not exist, because Typefully renders its prices in the browser where simple scrapers cannot read them.

Which Typefully alternative is cheapest?

It depends on how many accounts you connect. Buffer is cheapest to start because its free plan covers three channels indefinitely, and Zernio gives you the first two connected accounts free. Publer is usually cheapest for a mid-sized list at $5 for the first account and $4 for each additional, though X requires a paid plan there. Above roughly a hundred accounts, Zernio and Buffer both drop to $1 per account. If you need video platforms and a flat bill rather than a per-account ladder, Blotato’s $29 tier covers twenty accounts.

Can an AI agent post to TikTok and YouTube for me?

Yes, through a tool whose API reaches those platforms. Blotato exposes 35 MCP tools over a hosted server covering all nine of its platforms, and Postiz, Buffer, Post Bridge, Upload-Post and Zernio all run live MCP servers that answered an authentication challenge when I probed them. Typefully’s MCP server is equally real, but it can only reach the text platforms Typefully publishes to, which is the actual constraint rather than the protocol.