postqueen vs Buffer

postqueen is open source and built for AI agents to drive: the same account is reachable from a calendar, a CLI, a REST API and a built-in MCP server, and you can run the whole thing yourself. A polished, long running scheduler with a free plan and per channel pricing. Which one fits depends on whether you want to automate publishing or manage it in a dashboard.

postqueen is. It is AGPL-3.0 licensed, the code that touches your accounts is public, and self-hosting is free with a Docker image or a Helm chart. Buffer is a hosted product, so the database, the OAuth tokens and the publishing history stay on their infrastructure.

postqueen publishes to 30 channels and Buffer covers 11 of the ones we track. The number matters less than the overlap: list the networks you actually post to, then check both against that list rather than against each other.

postqueen ships a built-in MCP server, a CLI on npm, a REST API, a Node SDK and an n8n node, so Claude Code, ChatGPT, Codex, Cursor, OpenClaw and Hermes can all drive it. Buffer offers both as well, so compare them on the tools each one exposes rather than on whether the surface exists.

postqueen cloud plans run from $20 to $99 a month with unlimited posts on every plan, four or five months free on yearly billing, and a 7-day free trial. Self-hosting is free. Buffer: a free plan is available, with paid plans from around $5 per channel per month and a 14 day free trial. Prices move, so confirm both before deciding.

Plan for the reconnection, not the export. Scheduled posts rarely migrate between tools, so someone re-enters the queue by hand, and every channel needs its OAuth connection made again. The part worth checking first is whether Buffer lets you take your analytics history with you, because that is the piece that is gone for good if it does not.