Kitchen.co has earned a loyal following among small agencies and freelancers — and we understand why. It's simple, familiar, and doesn't overwhelm you with features you'll never use. The folder-based organization feels natural, and the built-in communication channels keep conversations out of email.
But simplicity has a ceiling. And many agencies hit that ceiling when they realize Kitchen.co doesn't have visual annotations, built-in contracts, or a structured approval workflow.
If you're outgrowing Kitchen.co — or evaluating it alongside other options — here's how it compares to TryApprove.
What Kitchen.co does well
Familiar, folder-based organization
Kitchen.co organizes projects using a nested folder structure that looks and feels like your computer's file system. For agencies that think in terms of folders (Client → Project → Phase → Deliverable), this is immediately intuitive.
Communication channels
Built-in channels for client and team discussions keep conversations organized by project. It's a cleaner alternative to scattered email threads, and for simple feedback workflows, it works well enough.
Good accounting integrations
Kitchen.co integrates with Xero, QuickBooks, FreshBooks, and FreeAgent. If your agency already uses one of these for accounting, the connection is genuinely convenient for keeping invoices and financial records in sync.
Invoicing with multiple payment options
Built-in invoicing with Stripe and PayPal support — and the accounting integrations mean your invoices can flow directly into your bookkeeping without manual data entry.
Where agencies outgrow Kitchen.co
1. No visual annotations
This is the biggest gap. Kitchen.co lets clients comment on files, but they can't click on a specific part of a design to leave feedback. There's no pin-drop annotation, no markup tools, no timestamped video comments.
When your client says "the colors in the hero section feel wrong," you're left guessing which hero section, which colors, and what "feel wrong" means. With TryApprove's annotation system, your client clicks exactly where they mean and types their feedback. The pin stays attached to that precise location, and a threaded conversation happens right there.
The difference between "comment on a file" and "annotate directly on a design" might sound subtle. It isn't. It's the difference between clear feedback and an hour-long Zoom call to clarify what the client actually meant.
2. No built-in contracts or e-signatures
Kitchen.co doesn't have contract creation or e-signature functionality. Starting a new client engagement means sending contracts through DocuSign, PandaDoc, or a PDF email attachment — and managing that process outside your client portal.
TryApprove includes contracts as a core feature. Create a contract, attach it to a project, and your client signs it directly in their portal. The signed contract stays connected to the project, so you always have a reference for scope, terms, and payment schedules.
3. No structured approval workflow
Kitchen.co is built for sharing and communication — not for structured approvals. There's no "Approve" or "Request Changes" button on deliverables. There's no approval status tracking. There's no notification when a client makes a decision.
This means your approval "workflow" is a client typing "looks good" in a comment thread, which you then have to manually interpret and update in your project tracker.
TryApprove has one-click approvals built into every task. Your client sees a deliverable, clicks "Approve" or "Request Changes," and the status updates instantly. You get notified immediately. Every approval is timestamped and recorded. No ambiguity, no manual status updates.
4. No intake questionnaires or onboarding flow
Kitchen.co handles the "during the project" phase but doesn't have a structured way to onboard new clients. There are no intake questionnaires, no welcome documents, and no kickoff call scheduling built into the client experience.
TryApprove treats onboarding as a first-class workflow. Contracts, questionnaires, welcome docs, and kickoff calls — all accessible from the client portal before project work even begins.
5. Clients need accounts
Kitchen.co requires clients to create an account to access their portal. TryApprove uses magic links — your client clicks a link in their email and they're in. No signup, no password, no friction.
This might seem like a minor difference, but it has a measurable impact on approval speed.
Feature comparison: Kitchen.co vs TryApprove
| Feature | TryApprove | Kitchen.co |
|---|---|---|
| Client portal | ✅ White-label | ✅ White-label |
| Client access without signup | ✅ Magic link | ❌ Account required |
| Visual annotations | ✅ Pin-based on images, PDFs, video, websites | ❌ File comments only |
| One-click approvals | ✅ Approve / Request Changes | ❌ Comment-based |
| Built-in contracts & e-signatures | ✅ | ❌ |
| Intake questionnaires | ✅ | ❌ |
| Welcome docs & kickoff calls | ✅ | ❌ |
| Invoicing | ✅ | ✅ (Stripe + PayPal) |
| Team chat | ✅ | ✅ Channels |
| Accounting integrations | ❌ | ✅ (Xero, QuickBooks, FreshBooks) |
| Folder-based organization | ❌ (Project/task structure) | ✅ |
| Zapier/API integrations | ❌ | ✅ |
| Version history | ✅ | ❌ |
| Starting price | Free | Varies |
When Kitchen.co is the better choice
Kitchen.co wins if:
- You need deep accounting integrations. The Xero/QuickBooks/FreshBooks connections are mature and well-tested. If your bookkeeper lives in these tools, Kitchen.co's native integration saves real time.
- You need extensive Zapier/API workflows. Kitchen.co has broader integration support through Zapier and a REST API. If your agency relies on complex automated workflows between many tools, this matters.
- Your feedback process is conversation-based, not approval-based. If your client relationship is more collaborative — ongoing conversation rather than "approve or reject" — Kitchen.co's channel-based communication is a natural fit.
- You prefer folder-based organization. If your team thinks in folders and subfolders rather than projects and tasks, Kitchen.co's structure will feel more intuitive.
When TryApprove is the better choice
TryApprove wins if:
- You need visual annotations. If your deliverables are designs, videos, PDFs, or websites — and you want clear, pinpoint-accurate feedback — TryApprove's annotation system is a significant upgrade over file comments.
- You need a structured approval workflow. One-click approvals with status tracking, notifications, and timestamped records. Not "I think they approved it in that comment last Tuesday."
- You need built-in contracts. No more DocuSign subscription for a feature that should be part of your client portal.
- You want zero-friction client access. Magic link means your client never creates an account, never remembers a password, never hits a login wall.
- You want to cover the full client lifecycle. Onboarding → projects → approvals → invoicing, all in one platform.
Making the switch
If you're moving from Kitchen.co to TryApprove, the transition is straightforward:
- Start with your next new client. Set them up entirely in TryApprove — contract, questionnaire, project, deliverables.
- Test the workflow end-to-end. See how the approval flow, annotations, and invoicing feel compared to Kitchen.co.
- Migrate active projects. Move your current clients over one at a time. They'll receive a magic link to their new portal — no account setup needed.
Most agencies complete the switch in a week.