Percolate

Name: Percolate
Brand: PercoProductNYC

Now part of the Seismic Enablement CloudTM.

Est 2011|Valuation $401.1M|Raised $106.5M|27 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 29K|Web traffic 1K|FTEs 240|HQ New York City, New York, United States

MarketsMarketing Work Management Content Marketing Platforms

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

- CoSchedule vs Percolate: CoSchedule is more transparent on pricing and often easier to adopt for smaller teams. Percolate tends to be selected where governance, structured approvals, and enterprise operating models are central. - Sprout Social vs Percolate: Sprout is primarily a social platform and is often stronger in social analytics and reporting; Percolate is broader in upstream planning and content operations. - Sprinklr vs Percolate: Sprinklr is an enterprise suite with significant breadth (social and customer care) and can outmatch Percolate in omnichannel engagement depth, though it can be complex and costly. - Wrike vs Percolate: Wrike and similar work-management tools can outperform on general project management UX and flexibility; Percolate can be more domain-specific for content objects, campaign taxonomies, and approvals.

Market adoption trends

Percolate’s identity in 2026 is closely associated with Seismic after the acquisition, meaning procurement evaluations may treat Percolate capabilities as part of a broader enablement and content stack rather than a standalone CMP in many cases.

	Percolate (percolate.com)	CoSchedule	Sprout Social
Starting Price	Not publicly listed; third parties cite enterprise-level starting figures	Free calendar tier; paid social calendar available at modest per-user monthly rates	Per-seat pricing with annual billing common
Recommended for	Enterprise marketing orchestration: planning + workflows + approvals + asset governance	SMB/mid-market marketing calendars and social publishing	Social management + analytics for teams; mid-market to enterprise
Key Strength	Cross-functional orchestration and approvals; structured for enterprise use	Transparent pricing; fast adoption; calendar-first workflow	Social reporting and publishing; clearer packaging
Key Weakness	Pricing opacity; reporting/export complaints; may be more feature-rich than small teams require	May lack deep enterprise governance and complex approvals at global scale	Per-seat pricing can be costly; not a full CMP/MRM replacement

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

CoSchedule vs Percolate: CoSchedule is more transparent on pricing and often easier to adopt for smaller teams. Percolate tends to be selected where governance, structured approvals, and enterprise operating models are central.
Sprout Social vs Percolate: Sprout is primarily a social platform and is often stronger in social analytics and reporting; Percolate is broader in upstream planning and content operations.
Sprinklr vs Percolate: Sprinklr is an enterprise suite with significant breadth (social and customer care) and can outmatch Percolate in omnichannel engagement depth, though it can be complex and costly.
Wrike vs Percolate: Wrike and similar work-management tools can outperform on general project management UX and flexibility; Percolate can be more domain-specific for content objects, campaign taxonomies, and approvals.

Market adoption trends

	Percolate (percolate.com)	CoSchedule	Sprout Social
Starting Price	Not publicly listed; third parties cite enterprise-level starting figures	Free calendar tier; paid social calendar available at modest per-user monthly rates	Per-seat pricing with annual billing common
Recommended for	Enterprise marketing orchestration: planning + workflows + approvals + asset governance	SMB/mid-market marketing calendars and social publishing	Social management + analytics for teams; mid-market to enterprise
Key Strength	Cross-functional orchestration and approvals; structured for enterprise use	Transparent pricing; fast adoption; calendar-first workflow	Social reporting and publishing; clearer packaging
Key Weakness	Pricing opacity; reporting/export complaints; may be more feature-rich than small teams require	May lack deep enterprise governance and complex approvals at global scale	Per-seat pricing can be costly; not a full CMP/MRM replacement