Threads on the panels: young network, narrow inventory

Threads is the youngest network in this comparison, and the inventory shows it: 378 orderable entries across 10 service tiers from 18 catalogues, uniformly thin across all tiers. No single figure stands out, because no figure yet carries the platform.

For the comparison this has one pleasant and one unpleasant consequence. Pleasant: the tiers are manageable, and a glance at the rows is enough to see the price level. Unpleasant: it depends on a few providers, and what applies today may look different after the next refresh.

One peculiarity concerns the account. A Threads profile is tied to an Instagram account, and anyone who already has reach there partly brings it along. That is the route most likely to compete with an order on this network — and it costs nothing.

One figure still belongs in the picture, because it comes from the fields rather than the titles: the number of offers on this network where the panel reports a refill through its own API is 49. This refers to the variant you can trigger yourself; what the offer name says is a promise, not a field. In a young inventory this number is at the same time the best indication of how mature delivery already is here.

The lowest qualifying base price on this network is 0.54 € per thousand units, with the middle of the range at 8.73 €. The lower value is currently set by JingleSMM — that is a property of a single catalogue, not a market condition, and at the next refresh it may sit with a different house. Both are wholesale purchase prices, not what a German-language sales page charges for it.

The profile carries Followers.

The individual post carries Likes, Comments and Reposts. Comments are also the product here that gets read; the other two are counted.

Which providers stand behind these rows is covered in the panel comparison; whether buying is worthwhile at all is covered on buy followers.

Between two exports the catalogue does not stand still. Since 31/10/2026, 11 entries in this scope have a different base price than before, of which 0 upward and 11 downward; 0 rows have been newly added and 0 have disappeared from the catalogues. The date given is the oldest of these preliminary exports, so the row does not claim a freshness that its slowest component does not have.

Comparison runs only across panels that have a second export at all; their number is 18 and is not the number of indexed panels, because a newly added provider has no history yet. As long as this second export is missing, nothing appears here — a zero would mean "nothing has moved", and that is a measurement, not a gap.

Two details appear in no panel API and are therefore maintained by hand from the panels' own statements: whether a provider issues a proper invoice and which payment methods it accepts. The number of providers with an invoice in this scope is 2. Since 30/08/2026, none of these details has gone unchecked here — the oldest check is shown rather than the most recent, because a date based on the last check would hide the providers that nobody has looked at for longest. The number of providers with no check at all is currently 0.

Where entries from different providers within one tier match each other down to the quantity limits, we record them as a group and mark the more expensive rows with a note that they probably sell the same source — not all of them, because where the price gap could only be a counting error, the note is left out. The number of groups touching this excerpt is 44, the number of marked rows is 60. The word "probably" matters: no panel writes into its API who it buys from, and two identically cut rows are a hint, not proof. The count also covers only what touches this excerpt — the groups do not split the inventory. How this is measured is described in the panel comparison.