FeedFast vs Nolt — one board or one hub

Nolt has been doing one thing for years: a clean, public feedback board with voting and a roadmap, embedded wherever you want it. It is a focused product with a long track record, and "focused with a long track record" is a genuinely good reason to buy something.

FeedFast is a different shape. This is an honest account of which shape fits which problem.

The shape difference, in one paragraph

Nolt is a board. You create a board, people post to it, you organise it, and you embed it.

FeedFast is a hub. You create a project and it gets a public page with up to three tabs — changelog, feedback, status — sharing a design, a subscriber list and a single script tag. The board is one of the three.

Neither shape is better in the abstract. One board done well beats three things done adequately, right up until you find yourself paying for and configuring a status page somewhere else.

Buy the focused board if

You want it on your own domain. A board at feedback.yourcompany.com reads as part of your product; a board on someone else's domain reads as a third-party tool you bolted on. FeedFast has no custom domain support — your hub lives at feedfa.st/p/your-slug and that is the whole story today. If a custom domain is on your list, check what Nolt offers and on which plan, and let that decide it.

You want the board to be the centrepiece. If you are running a serious public roadmap where the board is a product surface in its own right, depth in that one surface is worth more than adjacent modules.

You need it to have existed for a while. Nolt has years of other people finding the bugs. FeedFast does not. That is a real difference in risk and it is fair to price it in.

Buy the hub if

You were going to need a status page too. This is the honest centre of the comparison. FeedFast runs HTTP checks on a schedule, opens an incident only after two consecutive failures — so a single blip does not page you — sends alert and recovery emails, and publishes a status page with a 90-day bar for each monitor. Scheduled maintenance windows suppress incidents rather than firing false alarms, and the status page announces them ahead of time.

If you already pay for a status product, compare the total. If you never intend to run one, ignore all of it.

You want the loop closed automatically. Mark a request Done and one action turns it into a changelog entry with the post linked and the category mapped to a tag. Publishing pushes it to the public page, the RSS feed and the "What's new" widget with its unread dot, in one step. The person who asked gets a public reply pointing at the release.

You want one bill and one integration. One script tag gives you a feedback button on your own markup, an uptime bar for your footer, changelog entries as cards or an inline list, and the floating badge. Everything renders in a shadow root, so your CSS cannot leak in and its CSS cannot leak out.

You want an agent to be able to drive it. There is a REST API with scoped keys and an MCP server on npm as feedfast-mcp, so Claude Code, Cursor or any MCP client can read the board and publish the release note. Keys can be read-only.

What each is likely to cost you

We are not going to quote Nolt's prices, because they change and we would rather be right than current. What is worth understanding is that the two products are priced on different axes, and that is what makes the comparison awkward.

FeedFast is priced per account: free forever for one project, and $9 a month or $79 a year for Pro, which covers five projects, ten monitors, unlimited changelog entries and unlimited status subscribers. There are no per-seat charges, because there are no seats.

Board-based products are commonly priced per board, sometimes with the interesting features on a higher tier. Whether that works out cheaper depends entirely on how many boards you need and which features you land on.

What you are deciding	FeedFast's answer	Worth checking on Nolt
Custom domain	No	Whether it is offered, and on which plan
Priced by	Account — 1 project free, 5 on Pro	Board, seat, or something else
Status page	Included, same subscriber list	Whether uptime is in scope at all
Changelog	Included, with RSS and a widget	Whether release notes are part of it
Track record	New	Years — a real advantage
Team members	No	How collaborators are handled
Machine access	REST API and MCP server	API scope, and whether an MCP server exists

Do the arithmetic for the size you expect to be in a year, on both. Two products that look similar for one board can diverge sharply at three.

Where FeedFast will annoy you

• No custom domains. Repeated because it is the single most likely reason to pick the other tool.
• No team members. One account owns everything. No roles, no per-person logins.
• Email alerts only. No Slack, no Discord.
• A smaller board. No revenue weighting, no segmentation, no CRM links.
• The free tier carries a "Powered by FeedFast" badge, removable only on Pro, alongside one project, 15 changelog entries and one monitor on a five-minute interval. The badge is deliberate — it is how a small product gets found — but it is a real constraint and you should know before you build a public page on it.

The test that actually settles it

Write down the tools you would be paying for in a year if you took each path.

If the honest answer for the focused board is "just the board", it is probably the right buy, and the breadth we are selling is breadth you will not use.

If the answer is "the board, plus a status page, plus somewhere to write release notes, plus the glue between them" — that is three subscriptions, three integrations and three places to remember. That is the case FeedFast exists to make, and the only case where it wins.