Comparison
Four paths, seven questions that decide.
Every company that decides to put its leadership on the platform compares the same options: hire an agency, use an AI tool, build it in-house, or hire us. We answer the seven side by side, with our own column held to the same questions.
One comparison at a time
One page per alternative.
Each one opens on what that alternative does well, because a comparison that only attacks helps nobody decide. Then it shows where it stops serving a leadership team in a regulated sector.
- Katalista or a PR agencyThe agency puts the brand in the outlet. We put the executive on the radar.
- Katalista or a freelancerWriting was never the bottleneck. Compliance, continuity and scale are.
- Katalista or an in-house teamYour team does almost all of it. The three steps missing are the ones that stall the programme.
- Katalista or ChatGPT, Claude, GeminiThe assistant delivers a piece of copy. What is missing is everything that comes after it.
- Katalista or the LinkedIn toolsThree tools, three different comparisons.
- Katalista or TaplioTaplio equips one profile at a time. We run the whole board.
- Katalista or ScripeScripe publishes through the same API we do. We also write the post.
- Katalista or AuthoredUpAuthoredUp gives the board a shared editor. The copy still belongs to each of them.
Who Katalista is for
Three or more executives, in a regulated sector.
That is where the arithmetic works, where the network effect shows up and where compliance inside the workflow earns what it costs. Outside that range, the honest answer is usually a different one:
One post a month, for a single executive: an AI tool handles it and costs less.
An institutional campaign with audiovisual production: that is agency work, and it is not what we do.
Maximum reach at the lowest cost: paid media delivers more per unit spent. What we sell is an executive's signature under an argument, not impressions.
The seven questions
The seven questions that decide.
| Agencies | AI tools | In-house team | Katalista | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who sets the compliance rules? | Case by case, and it depends on who is writing this week. | Nobody. The risk sits entirely with the executive. | Your team, if it has the bandwidth to review every week. | Your marketing team, with legal validating. The check runs inside the workflow, before anything goes out. |
| How does the piece go live? | It varies. Many hand over the copy and the executive posts it; others ask for the account in order to schedule. Worth asking before you sign. | It depends on the tool. Assistants like ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini do not access the account: you paste the copy and post it by hand. Among the schedulers, Scripe describes itself as an official LinkedIn API partner; AuthoredUp publishes through its browser extension, with the executive signed in; Taplio requires the extension to be installed in order to connect the account. | By hand. The executive posts it himself. | Through the official LinkedIn API, authorised by him and revocable at any time — no password and no account access. |
| How much of the executive's time does it take? | Recurring meetings, turnaround measured in days. | He has to write the prompt, review the output and post it manually. | High. The production is his. | Ten minutes a week, asynchronous. |
| Where does the content come from? | From whoever the agency puts on the account, and that is rarely your decision. | A generic prompt, with none of the company's context. | From the executive's own head, when he has the time. | An angle proposed and argued for, written in his voice, approved by him. |
| What happens when the writer leaves? | The memory goes with them. | There is no memory: it restarts with every session. | Entirely dependent on the person. | It accumulates per executive and per company. It stays. |
| How does this scale from 3 to 25 executives? | Cost grows in a straight line. In practice it does not scale. | It scales, with no governance at all. | It scales — large communications departments look after thirty spokespeople. What does not scale is doing it cheaply. | The compliance rules and the editorial line are written once, per company, and hold for every executive who joins afterwards. The largest programme we run today has 25 executives inside one company. |
| What does it cost? | A monthly retainer to look after a single executive, quoted per account. | Low. What stops the approval is not the price — it is that nobody inside the tool checks the piece against the company's rules. | Salary and senior people's time, hard to isolate. | Priced per executive, per month, from three executives up. The closed proposal is built for the company: how many executives join and for how long. |
Verified August 2026.
How each tool publishes, on its own vendor's pages: Scripe · AuthoredUp · Taplio. Read on August 11, 2026.
A fourth option
What about employee advocacy platforms?
Sociabble, EveryoneSocial, DSMN8 and Oktopost solve a real and different problem: distributing already-approved corporate content through many employees. They assume the content exists. We produce the authored content of one specific executive, in his own voice, which is exactly what they need handed to them ready. Distribution is theirs; production with governance is ours, and the two live together.
See where your leadership team stands today.
Thirty minutes with our team, and you leave with a read on your executives' presence.