Apollo.io vs Reply.io
Both are AI Sales & Outreach tools — here's how Apollo.io and Reply.io stack up on pricing, strengths, and fit, so you can pick the right one.
Key differences
On price, Apollo.io starts at $59/seat/mo (freemium) while Reply.io starts at $60/seat/mo (paid). Apollo.io leans toward outbound sdr teams, whereas Reply.io is a better fit for smb outbound teams. Both compete in AI Sales & Outreach, so the choice usually comes down to budget and which workflow each one slots into. Read the full reviews below for the detail behind each.
Reply rates below 3% are almost never a sequence problem. They're a data problem. Apollo.io and Reply.io both target more outbound replies. They approach that outcome from opposite ends of the upstream workflow.
TL;DR
- Apollo.io wins for teams without an existing contact data source. The built-in B2B database removes a whole integration problem from week one.
- Reply.io wins for teams with enriched, verified lead lists who want stronger multi-channel automation: LinkedIn, WhatsApp, calls, and email coordinated from one visual builder.
- Apollo's free tier includes 50 export credits/month. Reply.io has no free tier.
- Apollo.io's database covers ~270 million B2B contacts. Reply.io brings no proprietary database.
- For teams with budget for both: run Apollo for data sourcing, Reply.io for sending. If budget forces a choice, it hinges on whether your data problem or your execution problem is bigger right now.
Is Apollo.io better than Reply.io?
For teams starting cold, with no existing contact list and no enrichment pipeline: yes. Apollo bundles the database and the sequencer in one platform. That removes the two-vendor problem on week one. It's the faster path from zero to live campaign. That said, teams already running a mature enrichment stack (Clay, LinkedIn Sales Navigator, or Clearbit) and needing deeper multi-channel coordination often find Reply.io delivers more at the execution layer, particularly on LinkedIn automation and autonomous SDR capabilities.
What each platform actually is
Apollo.io launched in 2015 as a B2B prospecting database first. Sequences, calling, and LinkedIn outreach were added later. By June 2026, the database covers 270 million contacts across 60 million companies, with built-in email verification at every tier. Free plan includes 50 export credits/month. Paid plans start at $49/user/month (Basic) and $79/user/month (Professional), with sequences included at both levels.
Reply.io launched in 2014 as a pure engagement platform, no database included. Its core is the execution layer: multi-step email sequences, LinkedIn automation, calls, SMS, WhatsApp, A/B testing across message variants, and Jason AI, an autonomous SDR agent that handles prospecting, personalization, and objection handling without human review per lead. Pricing starts around $49/seat/month (email-focused entry, contact-tiered); full multichannel and the Jason AI SDR are higher tiers, with LinkedIn and calling as paid add-ons. No free tier.
Where they actually diverge: the database question
Most comparison guides understate this. Apollo.io has a built-in contact database; Reply.io does not. Start cold with Apollo and you can source and sequence from one tool. With Reply.io you bring your own data — from Sales Navigator, Clay, Clearbit, or a warehouse export — which adds a sourcing step but lets you sequence on lists you already trust. That single difference drives most of the decision. Both tools review well on G2 — check their current profiles for the latest scores and review counts.
When Reply.io is the clearer choice
Three situations where Reply.io is the right call, not the fallback.
Your contact data is already solid. If your team runs an enrichment pipeline through Clay, Clearbit, or a data warehouse export, Reply.io's sequence execution on verified contacts outperforms Apollo's integrated flow. Reply.io's sequence execution on verified contacts is where it's strongest, because the LinkedIn and call steps are more tightly coordinated across the workflow.
You need autonomous AI SDR capabilities. Reply.io's Jason AI handles prospecting, message personalization, follow-up scheduling, and initial objection responses without a rep involved per lead. As of June 2026, this feature is more developed in Reply.io than anything comparable in Apollo's agent tooling.
Multi-channel sequencing runs your motion. Reply.io's LinkedIn integration runs natively through a browser extension, so a sequence mixing email, a LinkedIn connection request, a LinkedIn message, and a phone call step can run from one visual builder. Apollo's LinkedIn steps exist but route more execution through manual actions or third-party integrations.
Pricing at team scale
Apollo.io is per-seat: Basic around $49/user/month (annual) and Professional around $79/user/month, with prospecting credits drawn from a shared pool on top. Reply.io's pricing is more layered — entry plans start around $49/seat/month (email-focused, contact-tiered), and full multichannel plus the Jason AI SDR sit on higher tiers, with LinkedIn and calling as paid add-ons. Both vendors reprice often, so run your own seat count and channel mix against their current pricing pages rather than trusting a fixed annual figure here.
Our verdict
For teams starting outbound without a contact source: Apollo.io is faster and cheaper. Database plus sequencer in one platform, a functional free tier for ICP validation, and a lower entry price than Reply.io.
For teams with an existing enrichment stack: Reply.io's multi-channel depth and Jason AI deliver more execution per dollar.
The realistic path: run Apollo until your data problem is solved and your sequences are validated. Once you're processing 500-plus new contacts per month, evaluate whether Reply.io's execution gains justify running two platforms. For most teams at that volume, the math says yes.