Updated 14 August 2026. 

MagicPost prices, checked both ways

The pricing page opens on the yearly toggle, marked "Yearly 40% off". Flip it to monthly and the numbers change:

Plan	Billed yearly	Month to month	Annual total
Analytics	$21/month	$35/month	$252
Creator	$39/month	$69/month	$468
Team or Agency	"Let's talk"	"Let's talk"	—

There's a free trial with no card.

The part worth knowing before you pick: the AI writing is on Creator, not Analytics. 

Post generator, visuals and carousels, idea generator, the inspirations library, lead detection and the API and MCP integration all sit above the $21 line. 

Analytics buys you LinkedIn metrics, manual writing and scheduling, and scheduled comments. If you came to MagicPost for the AI, your price is $39 a month with a year committed, or $69 a month if you'd rather not commit.

What it actually does

MagicPost is broader than a post generator, and reviews treating it as one are arguing with a strawman.

Alongside the writing tools it does LinkedIn analytics, publishing and scheduling, comment scheduling, engagement, lead detection, a searchable library of over two million posts, and for agencies a client layer: multi-account management, send-for-approval and white-label reports. It runs in seven languages. 

The company says it has over 100,000 users and describes itself as a LinkedIn-verified partner working through official APIs rather than a browser extension. 

That last point is worth more than it sounds, because extension-based LinkedIn tools carry real account risk. It's built in France.

The boundary is that all of it happens on LinkedIn. MagicPost publishes to one platform, measures one platform and finds ideas on one platform. 

That's a deliberate choice and their homepage says so plainly: "Not your generic AI. MagicPost is built exclusively for LinkedIn."

One feature worth clearing up because the name misleads. MagicPost's MCP integration connects it to Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity, which means you can drive MagicPost from an AI client instead of its own interface. 

That's a convenience for you. It has nothing to do with whether those engines mention you when someone else asks them a question.

So is it worth it?

If you post regularly on LinkedIn and want writing, scheduling and metrics in one place, $69 a month buys a lot of surface, and $39 is fair if you'll still be using it in a year. Take the free trial and find out.

The question underneath the price

Every tool in this category, MagicPost included, is built on the assumption that being seen on LinkedIn is what you're buying. That assumption is getting shakier.

More and more, the person who might hire you doesn't scroll to find you. They ask ChatGPT, Claude or Perplexity who they should be talking to in your field, and they work through the two or three names that come back. Nobody in that flow ever sees your feed.

Two things follow from that, and they change what your content needs to do.

Most of what an AI says about a business was published somewhere other than that business's own website. How much is contested. Muck Rack, who sell media monitoring, put earned sources at around 84% of AI citations. McKinsey's figure implies 90–95%. The most methodical measurement I've found, from a University of Toronto team, comes in lower at 54–66%. They disagree on the size and agree on the direction, and the Toronto paper adds the useful part: earned sources dominate the "who should I use for X" questions, while a company's own pages win the transactional ones.

And the things that make content citable are specific and testable. The most-cited peer-reviewed work here is a Princeton-led paper presented at KDD 2024, which found that adding statistics, cited sources and quotations to a page raised its visibility in generative engine responses by up to 40%. That result comes from the authors' own benchmark, and nobody has yet shown it holds the same way inside live commercial engines. It's the best evidence the field has, which tells you something about how young the field is.

A post written to perform in the LinkedIn feed and a post written to be cited by an answer engine are optimising for different things. The feed rewards a strong hook and a rhythm that keeps a thumb still. An answer engine wants a clear claim it can lift, with a number, a source or a named person attached to it.

Where Ghostart fits

Ghostart tracks the questions people ask AI engines in your field, tells you whether you're being named in the answers, and helps you write the content that changes that.

	MagicPost Creator	Ghostart
The job it does	Everything you do on LinkedIn, in one place	Get you named when AI answers questions in your field
Writing	Post generator, hooks, visuals, carousels, idea generator	Drafts in your own captured voice, from a company brand bible
Scoring before you publish	None published	Beige-ometer™, two scores out of ten: five human-quality signals (voice, emotion, rhythm, story, resonance) and five citability signals (statistics, cited sources, expert quotes, verifiable claims, answer-first)
What it measures	LinkedIn metrics, engagement, lead detection	Whether ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews cite you (Claude and Google AI Mode from Basic upwards)
Where it publishes	LinkedIn only	LinkedIn, WordPress, Ghost, Medium, Beehiiv, your own blog
Scheduling	Yes, plus comment scheduling	Yes, via the content calendar
Languages	7	8
Team and client work	Multi-account, approvals, white-label reports on the Team plan	5 seats on Basic, 15 on Growth, approval workflows on Growth
Price	$39/month billed yearly, $69 month to month	$99, $249 or $499 a month
Trial	Free, no card	7 days, no card

Those citability signals aren't ours. They come straight from the Princeton paper above, which is why they're weighted the way they are.

The publishing row is the one that matters most for this argument. A LinkedIn post is one of the harder things for an engine to cite, because it sits behind a login wall. 

An article on your own domain, or a guest piece somewhere with authority, is easier to read and easier to quote. Any tool that only publishes to LinkedIn has capped what it can do about your AI visibility before you've written a word.

Ghostart also does something no LinkedIn tool does, because it isn't a LinkedIn problem. 

It cross-references your earned coverage, the press mentions and guest pieces and reviews, against the URLs the engines actually cited. You find out which of your coverage the models are reading and which they've never touched.

What MagicPost does that Ghostart doesn't. Its LinkedIn performance analytics are deeper: post-level metrics tracked over time, which Ghostart doesn't currently give you. 

It schedules comments on other people's posts. And it has a library of two million posts to browse for ideas, along with a tool for analysing another creator's performance. 

We've deliberately not built that last one, because reverse-engineering what worked for someone else is how feeds end up sounding identical, which is the problem we exist to solve. 

What Ghostart costs

Starter is $99 a month, Basic $249, Growth $499, with 20% off annually ($79, $199 and $399 a month equivalent). Starter is a single seat across four engines. Basic adds Claude and Google AI Mode, five seats and alerts. Ghostart launches on 29 September 2026.

That's more than MagicPost, and it should be. We're not competing for the same budget line, and if what you need is a better LinkedIn workflow instead of AI Visibility and content creation, MagicPost is for you.

The verdict

MagicPost does what it says, has a free trial with no card, and prices from a page that leads with its cheapest annual number. That's standard practice and worth knowing before you compare it to anything. Its writing features live on the $39-to-$69 plan. If LinkedIn output is your bottleneck, buy it.

The thing to work out first is whether output is the bottleneck. If the people you want aren't scrolling LinkedIn to find you, more posts won't reach them, and a tool that only publishes to LinkedIn can't fix that. 

Being named in the answer they get is a different job. It's measurable, it's mostly won on content published away from your own site, and nobody, including us, can guarantee you a citation.

---

Sources

MagicPost pricing and features

• MagicPost pricing — checked on both the monthly and yearly toggle, 14 August 2026
• MagicPost homepage — feature list, user count, LinkedIn partner and language claims
• MagicPost review — Oiti / ghostwriting-ai, 6 June 2026 — independent corroboration of the $69 list price and the LinkedIn-verified partner status

AI citation research

• GEO: Generative Engine Optimization — Aggarwal et al., KDD 2024 (arXiv)
• What is AI reading? — Muck Rack, May 2026 (vendor research)
• New front door to the internet — McKinsey
• Navigating the shift — Chen et al., University of Toronto, arXiv:2601.16858