Skip to content
NagentNagent
Log inSign upHire your AI team
Atlas/Ocoya
Vendor dossier / Social media

Ocoya

Social publishing workspace combining creation, scheduling, inbox and workflow automation.

REVIEWED 23 SEPTEMBER 2026MarketingNO HANDS-ON BENCHMARK

What it is

Official-source notesSocial mediascaling

Ocoya presents publishing, design, a social inbox, visual workflows, API and MCP access. The current pricing structure uses brands, profiles and shared credits. [V1] [V2]

Documented means the statement is present in the cited material. Capability effectiveness, customer outcomes and security assurances have not been independently audited here.

Promoted use cases

  • Plan and publish social content
  • Automate posting and inbox replies
  • Connect external assistants through MCP

Social tools already coordinate people through calendars, approvals and inboxes. Adding an AI writer is not the same as adding shared intelligence or governed autonomy. The strongest comparison asks how brand context, customer context and publishing authority stay aligned when work moves from a planner to an agent and then to a public channel.

Pricing and buying model

Published commercial evidence

$29 / month

Entry plan: five profiles, 300 credits. Team $79/20 profiles/1,500 credits; Agency $199/100/5,000.

Check current commercial source ↗

Budget for implementation, model and tool usage, data, human review and ongoing support. Credit units and outcome definitions differ between vendors. A missing numeric rate is marked unverified rather than replaced with an old third-party estimate.

Collaboration and governance

An MCP connection creates another access path; review tool scopes, publishing authority and revocation behaviour.

The relevant unit of control is permission to publish or reply through a brand account. Inspect who can propose, approve, execute, interrupt and audit that action. Shared seats, shared content and a shared live agent session are different capabilities; require a demonstration of the one your process needs.

Evaluate memory correction, permission revocation and release control for updated instructions. An improvement loop should preserve the original evidence, proposed change, test results and named approver. A safety or security badge alone cannot establish those workflow properties.

Review and customer evidence

No independent review sample was verified in this research pass. Vendor-hosted testimonials are selection-biased customer evidence, not an aggregate rating.

Before relying on a testimonial, confirm the exact product, version, package, workload and baseline. Ask a relevant customer about setup effort, failed cases, ongoing manual work and support after launch. This dossier does not convert customer logos or vendor-hosted awards into independent proof.

Focused feature documentation

Focused documentation check · Sep 2026

Social profiles, shared credits and team boundaries

Ocoya presents AI copy, images, video, scheduling and an inbox in a social workspace. Its published Starter plan lists one user, five profiles and 300 AI credits at $29 monthly; its Team offer lists five users, 20 profiles and 1,500 credits at $79 monthly. These are package allowances, not evidence of a fully governed sales or CX agent team.

A brand’s assets and publishing authority should be evaluated separately. Have one user create a campaign, a second edit it and a third approve a scheduled post; inspect whether brand settings and approval history survive the handoff. The shared credit pool and counts of social profiles become material in an agency or multi-brand deployment.

Primary sources: Official current pricing ↗ · Official collaboration guide ↗

Published documentation and public illustrations; account behaviour was not independently tested.

Visual source

Public Ocoya source page captured 22 September 2026
Ocoya · Public page captured 22 Sept 2026. Vendor presentation, not an authenticated product test. Open source ↗

Fit, limitations and proof requests

Editorial assessment

Ocoya offers a useful social execution layer. Its API and MCP surfaces may make it complementary to a shared growth workspace rather than a replacement for one.

Priority question: Can an external agent draft safely without permission to publish or change connected accounts?

The evaluation owner should be the social lead and customer-care owner. Use quality engagement and timely, accurate customer responses as the business target. Judge the solution in its own stack role: a cloud runtime, a specialist production tool and a managed AI team can be complementary purchases.

Use-case evaluation plan

A multi-brand content calendar

Create a week of content for two brands with distinct voices and channel constraints. Ask an agent to reuse a common campaign insight without mixing logos, claims or permissions. Require an editor to approve each brand’s content and confirm that a later scheduling change preserves that approval history.

Measure: brand leakage, accepted posts, scheduling accuracy and reviewer time.

Public conversation to human care

Introduce a customer complaint beneath a campaign post. The workflow should identify the issue, avoid inventing an account-specific answer and route the customer to an appropriate human or authenticated channel. Test whether marketing and support see the same context without exposing private information publicly.

Measure: routing accuracy, inappropriate replies and time to a useful handoff.

Listening becomes an editorial decision

Give the system a mixture of useful signals, noisy mentions and a sudden spike. Ask it to explain what changed and propose a response. Require the team to distinguish a genuine customer theme from a temporary engagement anomaly before altering the content calendar.

Measure: evidence quality, false alarms and accepted changes to the publishing plan.

Detailed comparison

Read the detailed Nagent vs Ocoya guide for operating models, shared context, governance, cost, evidence gaps and a staged pilot.

Nagent vs Ocoya

Sources and evidence register

Nagent · Multiplayer AI for growth teamsResearch: 21–29 September 2026 · Public-source analysis, no hands-on benchmark · Sources & method