Keryo vs Buffer
Both schedule your posts. The difference is what happens before scheduling — and who each tool is built for. A factual comparison for agencies and freelance social media managers.
Buffer is one of the best-known social media schedulers: a clean queue, a free plan, and per-channel pricing that works well for creators and small teams posting on a few networks.
Keryo is built for a different job: agencies and freelance SMMs who turn one idea into native posts for several networks, for several clients. Its AI rewrites each idea per platform, keeps an automatic brand voice per client, and every network is included in one flat price. It can even be driven from Claude or ChatGPT through its MCP server.
Feature by feature
The Keryo column reflects shipped features only.
| Keryo | Buffer | |
|---|---|---|
| AI rewrite tailored per platform | ||
| Automatic per-client brand voice | Manual | |
| Multi-client workspaces | ||
| Schedule from Claude/ChatGPT (MCP server) | ||
| Per-platform analytics | ||
| Flat price, all networks included | ||
| Entry price | from €39/mo | from $5/channel/mo |
| Free plan | ||
| Free trial | 7 days, no card | 14 days |
Competitor capabilities and prices (USD) are indicative as of 2026 and can change — check their current plans before deciding.
Where Keryo takes a different approach
Native rewriting, not one caption adapted
Buffer's AI assistant helps you write and repurpose, but the workflow starts from one caption you adjust per channel. Keryo runs your idea through a separate, platform-tuned AI per network: long-form for LinkedIn, a tight hook for X, scroll-stopping copy for Instagram — one pass, a genuinely different post per platform.
Brand voice per client, applied automatically
In Buffer you keep each client's tone in your head (or a doc) and steer the AI manually. Keryo stores guidelines and generation rules per client workspace and injects them into every generation — ten clients, ten voices, zero re-briefing.
Flat pricing that doesn't grow per channel
Buffer charges per connected channel, so an agency running 5 clients × 4 networks pays for 20 channels. Keryo's plans are flat: every network included, you pay for client workspaces (3, 10 or 30).
Schedule posts from Claude or ChatGPT
Keryo ships an MCP server: connect it to Claude or ChatGPT and create, schedule or publish posts in natural language. Buffer has no MCP integration.
When Buffer is the better pick
An honest comparison cuts both ways. Buffer is likely the better fit if:
- You're a solo creator or small team posting on 1–3 channels — Buffer's free plan and per-channel pricing will cost less than any Keryo plan.
- You want a mature mobile app and years of ecosystem polish — Keryo is a young, web-first product.
- You mostly post the same content everywhere and don't need per-client brand voices.
Pricing compared
Buffer: free plan (limited channels), then paid plans from about $5/month per connected channel. Cheap to start, but the bill scales with every network and every client you add.
Keryo: flat EUR pricing with all 7 networks included — Freelance €39/month (3 client workspaces), Studio €89/month (10), Agency €199/month (30). Every plan starts with a 7-day free trial, no credit card required.
Keryo vs Buffer — common questions
Built for the agency workflow
Write once, let Keryo rewrite natively for every platform in each client's voice.
7-day free trial · No credit card