Reviews
Part of How to run influencer agencies reviews fairly
Which influencer agency platforms publish prices, and what a brand should ask its agency
Eight creator platforms influencer agencies use: which publish an edition and price (Modash, Heepsy, Sprout Social), which are quote-only, and what a brand should ask its agency before signing.
What to take away
When an influencer agency runs creator discovery, outreach and reporting on a licensed platform, the edition it holds shapes what a brand gets from it. Comparing those products by exact edition is useful only when the exact products perform the same bounded job. An influencer agencies product comparison follows that rule, whether you are an agency choosing a platform or a brand checking the one your agency uses.
No named product or edition wins here. The desk review did not obtain complete current identity, contract, data and security dossiers, or accessibility, export and testing dossiers. Naming a winner from feature pages would manufacture certainty.
Review record: creatorcampaign.co.uk designed the matrix on 6 September 2026. The subject is an England advertiser's creator-candidate register and controlled campaign evidence workflow, version 1.0. There was no supplier contact, account access, trial or demonstration. There was no creator data, live campaign or affiliate relationship.
- Public editions are named below to fill the comparison slots. Every gate stays blank until a dossier and controlled test exist.
- Compare one bounded task over one period using the same synthetic records and buyer-owned acceptance rules.
- Use a single evidence table to record all mandatory fields for each candidate and the manual baseline.
- Keep data protection, advertising, rights, security and other gates independent. Findings cannot offset each other.
- The present verdict is HOLD for named editions and the manual baseline alike.
Compare one task and one period
Ask each candidate to import the same synthetic creator records, record source and permission, and manage a mock brief and approval.
Controlled test steps
- Import synthetic creator records
- Record source and permission
- Manage mock brief and approval
- Restrict publishing access
- Export audit trail
- Delete test data
They must restrict publishing access, export the audit trail and delete the test data. Use one test date, expected outputs and buyer-owned acceptance rules. A creator discovery database, affiliate app, talent-management service and agency workflow are different products unless the buyer proves equivalent scope.
The baseline is a buyer-owned spreadsheet or register, document store and direct contracting process. Record its internal labour, assurance, security and maintenance on the same units. "No new product" does not receive automatic passes.
Named public editions and their blanks
Public editions are listed to show the comparison slots, not to rank them. Upfluence, CreatorIQ, Aspire and Traackr are quote-based, and Sprout Social prices its Influencer Marketing product through a demo, so those five cannot be compared on price here; Aspire and Traackr also do not publish editions. Ask the agency for its order form instead. Each row uses the same evidence gates. A blank means the desk review did not obtain the dossier or test. Public prices are starting points only. Confirm VAT, currency, unit, period, limits and renewal with the supplier.
| Named public edition | Public product fact | Public price or rate | Evidence gaps at 6 September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modash Essentials | Self-serve creator discovery, search and audience analytics | $199 per month on annual billing ($299 on monthly billing) at the October 2026 check; confirm VAT and current terms | Contract, data provenance, security, accessibility, export and test dossiers not obtained |
| Modash Performance | Higher self-serve tier on the same platform | $499 per month on annual billing ($599 on monthly billing) at the October 2026 check; confirm current terms | Same gaps |
| Heepsy Plus | Creator database and search tool, a mid-priced tier | Publicly listed at $149 per month billed annually or $199 billed monthly at the October 2026 check; confirm current terms | Same gaps |
| Upfluence (exact edition blank) | Creator discovery, campaign management and e-commerce integrations | Quote-based; no public rate verified | Same gaps |
| CreatorIQ Enterprise | Enterprise creator marketing platform | Quote-based; no public rate verified | Same gaps |
| Sprout Social Advanced with Influencer Marketing add-on | Social media management plus influencer marketing add-on | Advanced seat listed at $399 per seat per month; the Influencer Marketing product is priced through a demo | Same gaps |
| Aspire (exact edition blank) | Creator marketplace and campaign workflow | Quote-based; no public rate verified | Exact edition not published; same gaps |
| Traackr (exact edition blank) | Enterprise influencer relationship management | Quote-based; no public rate verified | Exact edition not published; same gaps |
Public-fact comparison at 6 September 2026
| Compared named editions | Concrete public finding | Unit | Still blank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modash Performance against Modash Essentials | Higher self-serve tier; public price gap about 300 on either billing basis | US dollars per month | Contract, data provenance, security, accessibility, export and test |
| Modash Essentials against Heepsy Plus | Modash lists $199 annual and $299 monthly; Heepsy lists $149 annual and $199 monthly, so Modash costs about $50 more a month on annual billing and $100 more on monthly billing; each vendor lists a different feature scope | US dollars per month | Same blanks |
| Upfluence against CreatorIQ Enterprise | Both quote-based; no public rate verified, so price comparison cannot be made | No public figure; no typical range asserted | Same blanks |
| Aspire against Traackr | Both quote-based; exact edition blank for each, so edition-level comparison cannot be made | No public figure; no typical range asserted | Exact edition not published; same blanks |
| Sprout Social Advanced with Influencer Marketing add-on | Advanced seat price public; the influencer product is priced through a demo, so total monthly cost cannot be computed | Advanced seat in US dollars per seat per month; influencer product quote unit not verified; no typical range asserted | Add-on rate, total cost and same blanks |
| Manual baseline against all named editions | No public list price; compare on buyer-owned units and period | Buyer-defined unit and period | Full internal economic cost and same blanks |
On public facts, Modash Performance is the higher public tier within Modash. Modash Essentials costs more than Heepsy Plus on either billing basis, and the listed scope differs. The quote-based editions cannot be ranked on price or exact edition from public facts. All evidence gates remain blank.
On the evidence gates, every named edition is blank on contract, data provenance, security, accessibility, export and test until the buyer obtains the dossier and runs the controlled test.
A public plan name does not answer creator-data provenance. A security certificate does not answer it either; the vendor due diligence checklist lists the questions to ask. An accessibility statement does not test buyer-authored screens. A platform integration does not grant rights or provide UK advertising clearance.
Use one evidence table for named editions
Use one row per field for each named edition and the manual baseline. Unknown remains unknown.
Field / Candidate product or edition
- Legal supplier and service
- Exact entity, product, edition, geography and evidence date · Buyer entity and process version
- Creator record
- Origin, field definition, permission, freshness and correction · Buyer source register and checks
- Workflow
- Brief, approval, disclosure, claims, rights and withdrawal evidence · Named owners and versioned files
- Data
- Purpose, role, transfer, retention, deletion and rights support · Buyer-controlled data map
- Access
- Roles, least privilege, logs, recovery and revocation · Buyer identity and access controls
- Accessibility
- Supplier evidence plus buyer test of configured journey · Test of the actual internal workflow
- Commercial
- Currency, VAT basis, unit, period, limits and renewal · Full internal economic cost
- Exit
- Export format, completeness, timescale, deletion and continuity · Portable buyer records
What a brand should ask its agency about the edition
An agency that runs your campaign on one of these platforms brings that edition's limits with it. Before you sign, ask the agency in writing:
- which platform and exact edition it will use, and whether the licence is in its name or yours;
- whether creator lists, contact logs and results built for your campaigns can be exported to you when the engagement ends;
- where the platform stores your campaign data, and who at the agency can see it;
- what security evidence the agency itself holds. The NCSC describes Cyber Essentials as the minimum standard of cyber security recommended by the Government for organisations of all sizes, and notes that a growing number of organisations require suppliers to be certified to bid for work.
An agency that runs a quote-based edition should be able to show you its own order form for the modules it uses. If it cannot, record that field as blank, exactly as the tables above do.
Keep the gates independent
The ICO's data protection by design guidance says controllers must consider whether processors provide sufficient guarantees. Its detailed controller-processor contract guidance is marked under review following legislative changes, so a qualified adviser must recheck the current position and actual roles.
Separately, request advertising claim and disclosure controls. The CMA's brand endorsement guidance covers businesses working through creators and intermediaries, but no software setting proves that a post meets the relevant duties.
Check rights for source assets and intended use against GOV.UK copyright guidance. Test account ownership and recovery against NCSC social-media publishing guidance. Privacy, PECR, advertising, rights and accessibility findings cannot offset security, safeguarding, tax and contract findings.
Decide with blanks, not invented scores
Mark each mandatory field PASS, HOLD or FAIL, with evidence and reviewer. Only admitted options proceed to buyer-weighted preferences: workflow fit ___, support ___, full cost ___ and exit resilience ___. A controlled test must record tester, environment, script and data. It must also record expected result and observed result.
The present verdict is HOLD for named editions and the manual baseline alike because neither has a completed dossier or test. This article reports a comparison method, not product experience, legality, suitability or likely results. Named product, procurement, privacy, security and advertising reviewers are required before appointment. Accessibility, IP, tax and evaluation reviewers are also required.
Before you act
- Confirm exact product, edition, geography and evidence date.
- Run the same controlled test with synthetic creator records.
- Record tester, environment, script, data, expected and observed results.
- Mark each mandatory field PASS, HOLD or FAIL with evidence.
- Recheck current ICO controller-processor contract guidance with a qualified adviser.
- Obtain named reviewers before any appointment.
Common questions
Why does the article refuse to name a winner?
Public editions are named to fill the comparison slots, but no winner is named because the desk review did not obtain complete current identity, contract, data and security dossiers, or accessibility, export and testing dossiers.
Naming a winner from feature pages would manufacture certainty. The present verdict is HOLD for named editions and the manual baseline alike because neither has a completed dossier or test.
What should a buyer test each candidate on?
Ask each candidate to import the same synthetic creator records and record source and permission. They must manage a mock brief and approval, restrict publishing access, export the audit trail and delete the test data. Use the same test date, expected outputs and buyer-owned acceptance rules.
How should the manual baseline be treated?
Treat it the same as any named edition, recording its labour, assurance, security and maintenance on the same units. It gets no automatic passes just because no new product is bought.
