Both Ayrshare and Postproxy are social media publishing APIs aimed at developers who do not want to build and maintain direct integrations with every social platform. Both support multi-tenant architectures for agencies and SaaS products, both abstract OAuth token management, and both let you publish across multiple networks from a single request.

If you are looking for an Ayrshare alternative or evaluating them side by side, you likely want to know where they actually differ — not a marketing features list. This article covers the real differences: pricing model, platform coverage, API design, how each handles multi-tenancy, and where one genuinely outperforms the other.

At a glance

One API for every social platform

Publish to Instagram, X, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube and more with a single request. Free plan, no credit card required.

Platform coverage

Ayrshare supports 13 platforms: X/Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube, Threads, Pinterest, Bluesky, Google Business Profile, Reddit, Snapchat, and Telegram.

Postproxy supports 8 platforms: X/Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube, Threads, and Pinterest.

If your application needs Bluesky, Google Business Profile, Reddit, Snapchat, or Telegram, Ayrshare covers those and Postproxy does not. This is the clearest area where Ayrshare wins outright. For teams building tools that need comprehensive coverage across newer and niche platforms, this matters.

For most publishing workflows — the core social networks where the majority of content actually gets published — both APIs cover the same ground.

Pricing

This is where the two products diverge most significantly.

Ayrshare pricing (as of early 2026):

Postproxy pricing:

The difference is substantial. For a developer or small agency managing social accounts for 10 clients:

• Ayrshare Launch: $299/month
• Postproxy Scale: $49/month

For a SaaS product managing 50 client accounts with unlimited publishing:

• Ayrshare Business: $599/month
• Postproxy Scale: $49/month (one unit) or stackable for more groups

Postproxy’s pricing counts a cross-post to multiple platforms as one post — publish to Instagram, LinkedIn, and X simultaneously, that counts as one post toward your plan limit. Ayrshare’s pricing model is profile-based rather than post-volume-based, which may work better depending on your usage pattern.

For teams in early stages building and testing: Postproxy has a free tier. Ayrshare offers a 14-day free trial.

Multi-tenant architecture and client isolation

Both APIs support multi-tenant use cases, but they approach it differently.

Ayrshare’s model uses a dual-key system: your primary API key plus a per-user Profile Key in the request headers. When a user connects their social accounts, you generate a JWT URL for them to authenticate. Subsequent API calls for that user pass their Profile Key alongside your API key.

# Ayrshare multi-user request

curl -X POST "https://api.ayrshare.com/api/post" \

-H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \

-H "Profile-Key: USER_PROFILE_KEY" \

-H "Content-Type: application/json" \

-d '{"post": "Your content", "platforms": ["instagram", "twitter"]}'

Postproxy’s model uses profile groups — isolated containers for social profiles that can each have their own scoped API key. A scoped key for Client A cannot access Client B’s profiles, posts, or data at all.

# Postproxy scoped key — only has access to one client's data

curl -X POST "https://api.postproxy.dev/api/posts" \

-H "Authorization: Bearer CLIENT_A_SCOPED_KEY" \

-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  
  -d '{"post": {"body": "Content"}, "profiles": ["instagram", "twitter"]}'

The practical difference: with Ayrshare, your backend holds one master API key and routes requests using Profile Keys. With Postproxy, you can issue true per-client API credentials where the key itself restricts data access at the API level — not just at your application layer. For SaaS builders who want clean data boundaries without relying on application-layer filtering, this model is easier to reason about.

Publishing states and failure handling

This is where Postproxy’s design differs most noticeably from Ayrshare.

Postproxy tracks each post through explicit states:

• draft — held, not yet submitted
• pending — queued for publishing
• published — successfully delivered
• failed — delivery failed, with reason
• failed_waiting_for_retry — failed but will retry automatically

Each state is tracked per platform. A post to four platforms generates four independent outcomes. If Instagram succeeds and LinkedIn fails, the post record reflects both outcomes separately. Webhooks fire per-platform, so your application receives platform_post.published for Instagram and platform_post.failed for LinkedIn as separate events.

Ayrshare returns per-platform status in the API response and supports webhook callbacks for post status updates. The core functionality is similar — both give you per-platform outcomes. Postproxy’s state machine approach makes the full post lifecycle more explicit, which matters when you are building approval workflows or need precise audit trails.

Draft and approval workflows

Postproxy has native draft support. Posts created with `