Apollo.io vs Reply.io

Reply.io ships with zero contacts. Apollo.io loads roughly 270 million of them, across 60 million companies, before a rep even logs in for the first time. That's not a feature gap. It's the one fact that decides most of this comparison before a single pricing tier gets compared.

Pricing and facts verified: October 2026.

TL;DR

• Apollo.io wins for teams with no contact source yet. Database and sequencer live in one login, and a rep can build a segment and launch a sequence the same day.
• Reply.io wins for teams whose list is already solid and want deeper multi-channel execution: LinkedIn, calls, SMS, WhatsApp, and an autonomous SDR agent called Jason AI, coordinated from one visual builder.
• Apollo's free tier includes 50 export credits a month. Reply.io has no free tier at all, so the first real signal on fit arrives after the first invoice, not before it.
• Apollo prices per seat: $49/user/month (Basic) to $79/user/month (Professional). Reply.io's entry tier runs $49 to $59/seat/month depending on plan vintage, with full multichannel and Jason AI gated to higher tiers neither vendor prices at a fixed public rate.
• A 4-person SDR team on Apollo Professional runs $316/month with the contact database included. The same 4 seats on Reply.io's entry tier land near $196 to $236/month, before a list even exists to sequence against.

Is Apollo.io better than Reply.io?

Only if your team has no contact database yet. Apollo bundles prospecting and sequencing in one login, which gets a cold-start team to a live campaign inside a day. Reply.io isn't competing in that scenario at all. It's an execution layer waiting on a list that doesn't exist. Answer that question first, before either tool gets compared feature by feature.

What each platform actually is

Apollo.io launched in 2015 as a B2B contact database first. Sequencing, calling, and LinkedIn outreach arrived later, stacked on top of that core asset. The database now covers roughly 270 million contacts across 60 million companies, with email verification built into every paid tier rather than sold as a separate add-on. Free tier: 50 export credits a month, enough to test fit on a small segment before paying anything. Paid tiers start at $49/user/month (Basic) and run to $79/user/month (Professional), sequencing included at both.

Reply.io launched a year earlier, in 2014, and ships no database at all. Its core is execution: multi-step email sequences, a native LinkedIn integration run through a browser extension, calls, SMS, WhatsApp, A/B testing across message variants, and Jason AI, an autonomous SDR agent that handles prospecting, personalization, and initial objection handling without a human reviewing every lead first. Pricing starts around $49/seat/month for an email-focused entry tier. Full multichannel and Jason AI sit higher, with LinkedIn and calling priced as add-ons on some plans. No free tier exists, so a team can't trial the multichannel layer before a card is charged.

Where they actually diverge

Most comparison guides skate past this part. Apollo has a database. Reply.io does not. Start cold with Apollo and prospecting plus sequencing runs from one tool, no second vendor involved before the first message ships. Start with Reply.io and you bring your own list, from Sales Navigator, Clay, Clearbit, or a CRM export, which adds a sourcing step but lets you sequence on data you already trust rather than whatever Apollo happened to have on file for that account.

Run the two side by side on what actually decides a purchase, not the demo script:

• Contact source: Apollo ships one, roughly 270 million records. Reply.io ships none; you bring a list from elsewhere.
• Channel depth: Apollo covers email plus a lighter LinkedIn and call layer. Reply.io runs email, LinkedIn, calls, SMS, and WhatsApp from one visual sequence builder.
• Autonomous AI SDR: Reply.io's Jason AI handles prospecting, personalization, and follow-up without a rep touching each lead. Apollo has no comparable feature today.
• Entry pricing: Apollo's Basic tier runs $49/user/month, database included. Reply.io's entry tier runs $49 to $59/seat/month, with no contacts attached.
• Free tier: Apollo gives 50 export credits a month to test on. Reply.io gives nothing to trial before a card gets charged.
• Best-fit team size: Apollo suits a cold-start team building its first pipeline. Reply.io suits a team with an existing list whose reply rate has plateaued.

That gap explains why the two rarely compete for the same buyer. A team asking which one to buy first almost always has an empty pipeline. A team asking which one fixes flat reply rates almost always already has a list from somewhere, and is really asking whether Reply.io's execution layer beats whatever it's currently sequencing through.

Run the actual scenario before guessing. A 4-person SDR team starting from zero buys four Apollo Professional seats at $316/month combined and has a live campaign running that same afternoon. The same four seats on Reply.io cost $196 to $236/month, cheaper on paper, but Jason AI has nothing to work with yet. The team still needs a list: a Sales Navigator pull, a Clay subscription, or a CRM export, before a single sequence can start. Reply.io's path can end up cheaper per seat. It is not faster to a first sent message.

When Apollo.io wins

You have no contact source yet. Reply.io has nothing to sequence without a starting list. Apollo's built-in database removes that first step entirely. A rep can build a segment and launch a campaign in the same session, no second vendor required.

You want one tool, one login, one bill. A two-person outbound team doesn't need to wire a CRM export into a separate sequencer before the first message goes out. Apollo's bundled model is the faster path to a live campaign.

Your channel mix is mostly email. Apollo's sequencer covers email, plus a lighter LinkedIn and call layer, well enough for a team not yet running a genuine multi-channel motion. Paying for Reply.io's deeper LinkedIn automation and Jason AI adds cost without adding much if the sequence never leaves the inbox.

When Reply.io wins

Your contact data is already solid. If your list comes from an existing CRM, a prior enrichment run, or Sales Navigator exports, Reply.io's sequence execution on verified contacts outperforms Apollo's integrated flow. The LinkedIn and call steps coordinate more tightly across a single visual builder.

You need autonomous AI SDR capability. Jason AI handles prospecting, personalization, follow-up scheduling, and initial objection responses without a rep touching each lead. That capability runs deeper inside Reply.io today than anything comparable in Apollo's own tooling.

Multi-channel sequencing is the actual motion. A sequence mixing email, a LinkedIn connection request, a LinkedIn message, and a call step runs from one builder in Reply.io. Apollo's LinkedIn steps exist, but route more of the execution through manual actions or third-party integrations bolted on top.

Pricing at team scale

Apollo prices per seat: Basic around $49/user/month, Professional around $79/user/month, with prospecting credits drawn from a shared pool. A 4-person team on Professional runs $316/month total, contacts included.

Reply.io's entry tier sits around $49 to $59/seat/month depending on plan vintage. Full multichannel plus Jason AI sit on higher tiers, and some channels price as paid add-ons on top of the seat fee, so a true multichannel seat often runs meaningfully past its advertised entry number. Neither vendor lists that higher-tier figure at a fixed public rate. The same 4-person team pays $196 to $236/month for entry-tier seats alone, before the add-ons that make Jason AI and full LinkedIn automation actually usable.

Both vendors reprice often. Confirm current tiers on each vendor's own pricing page before you commit a budget line to either one.

Our verdict

For teams starting outbound with no contact source: Apollo.io is the faster, cheaper start. Database and sequencer in one login beats sourcing a list before you've validated a single message. Run it for a full quarter before adding anything else.

For teams with an existing enrichment stack or a CRM full of unworked leads: Reply.io's multi-channel depth and Jason AI extract more value from data you already paid to acquire.

The honest limitation on Reply.io's side: it does nothing for a team with an empty pipeline. Buying it before the data problem is solved just adds a second bill with nothing to sequence. Run Apollo, or whatever gets a list in the door, until that's no longer true. Then decide whether Reply.io's execution layer is worth the added seat cost.