Apollo.io vs Reply.io: Cross-Category Comparison

Reply.io vs Apollo is filed as a cross-category comparison, a cold email platform against a sales engagement platform, but the two pricing pages overlap more than the labels suggest. Reply.io's Multichannel tier and Apollo's Professional tier are within ten dollars of each other per user on annual billing, $89 against $79, and both are $99 on monthly billing. Both list multichannel sequences, warmup, a dialer and a large contact database.

Reply.io draws its live data from a pool it describes as 1 billion B2B contacts and includes email warmup with every mailbox. Apollo's pricing page cites 240M contacts and 30M companies and lists a Deliverability Suite with email warmup from Basic up. The choice is between two overlapping platforms, and the meters decide it.

Reply.io vs Apollo: how to evaluate the pair

Evaluate Reply.io vs Apollo on three meters. Apollo bills per seat and grants data credits per seat, from $49 a month billed annually. Reply bills Email Volume by active contacts from $49, and Multichannel per user from $89. Then check sending limits: Apollo's Basic plan allows 1 mailbox per user and 250 daily email sends, while Reply's Email Volume lists unlimited mailboxes.

The seat meter is the one that surprises teams. Apollo's credits are granted per seat per year, 30,000 on Basic, 48,000 on Professional and 72,000 on Organization, so adding a rep adds both cost and data. Reply's Email Volume price moves with the number of people you first-touch a month, and its Multichannel price with the number of users. Reply's Email Volume also carries 50 live data credits a month.

Where the sending side differs

Apollo's plan cards list a Deliverability Suite and email warmup from Basic up, unlimited sequences on every paid tier, and domain and mailbox purchasing. Its sending limits step with the plan: Free and Basic list 1 mailbox per user and 250 daily email sends, Professional lists unlimited Google and Microsoft mailboxes plus 5 SMTP mailboxes per user with unlimited daily sends, and Organization raises that to 15 SMTP mailboxes per user.

Reply.io lists email warmup as included with every mailbox and an anti-spam and deliverability suite, with inbox rotation and custom tracking domains in its feature grid. Email Volume carries unlimited mailboxes under a fair usage policy and unlimited emails to active contacts; Multichannel carries 10 mailboxes on annual billing and 5 on monthly, with extra mailboxes at $29 a month each. Reply also sells new sending domains from $6 a year plus $5 per mailbox a month.

Pricing Comparison

Apollo.io Pricing

Apollo's pricing page loads on annual billing, which it labels as saving 24%, and renders each paid figure as the per seat per month rate. Switching the toggle to monthly billing shows $65, $99 and $149, with Organization marked annual only and credits granted monthly instead: 2,500, 4,000 and 6,000 per seat.

Source: Apollo.io Pricing

Reply.io Pricing

Two things on that page repay a second read. The Multichannel card lists 5 mailboxes per user in its monthly state and 10 in its annual state, and the page's own feature grid says 5 mailboxes per user, so the mailbox allowance is worth confirming with Reply.io before you size a stack on it. And the AI SDR row is a slider: its lowest position reads $500 a month billed annually and $800 on the monthly view, and the higher numbers are other positions of the same control.

Source: Reply.io Pricing

Pricing Context

These two pages do not price the same unit, so a headline comparison between them says very little. Read the meter first: one of these vendors bills for seats and research, the other for reach and sending identity. A stack that adds a rep and a stack that adds a domain will move in completely different directions on the same two invoices.

What A Two-Tool Stack Costs

Here is illustrative arithmetic, invented as a worked example rather than taken from any client, for a two person team running one wave of about 2,000 prospects a month.

Apollo.io on its Basic tier is $49 per seat per month billed annually, so 2 seats across twelve months comes to $1,176.

Reply.io's Email Volume slider reads $59 per user a month billed annually at 2,000 active contacts, so taking that label at its word, 2 users across twelve months comes to $1,416.

Together that is $2,592 a year before anyone has sent a single email, and the two lines move for different reasons: one grows when the team grows, the other when the volume does.

Line	Rate	A year
Apollo Basic, 2 seats	$49 per seat a month	$1,176
Reply.io Email Volume at 2,000 active contacts, 2 users	$59 per user a month	$1,416
Both tools	before any email is sent	$2,592

Apollo grows with the team; Reply.io grows with the people contacted each month.

Feature Highlights

Every item below is list membership: what each vendor's pricing page lists, never a claim that the other cannot do it.

Apollo's pricing page lists its 240M contacts and 30M companies, unlimited sequences on every paid tier with A/Z testing from Professional, the Deliverability Suite and email warmup from Basic, domain and mailbox purchasing, a US dialer that draws on credits with call recording, intent topics and job change enrichment, website visitor identification, and LLM integrations over MCP.

Reply.io's pricing page lists live data from 1 billion B2B contacts, warmup with every mailbox and an anti-spam and deliverability suite, inbox rotation and custom tracking domains, LinkedIn automation at $69 and calls and SMS at $29 a month per account, new domains from $6 a year, the Jason AI SDR from $500 a month, Agency Core client workspaces, a 14-day trial, and MCP.

Apollo lists

• 240M contacts and 30M companies
• Unlimited sequences on paid tiers, A/Z testing from Professional
• Both Deliverability Suite and email warmup
• Both Domain and mailbox purchasing
• US dialer (credits apply) and call recording
• Intent topics and job change enrichment
• Both LLM integrations over MCP

Reply.io lists

• Live data from 1 billion B2B contacts
• Both Warmup with every mailbox, deliverability suite
• Inbox rotation and custom tracking domains
• Both New domains from $6 a year
• LinkedIn $69, calls and SMS $29 a month per account
• Jason AI SDR from $500 a month
• Both MCP

Where The Two Actually Overlap

Both list multichannel sequences, warmup, deliverability tooling, CRM sync, AI writing, domain purchasing and MCP. Reply.io lists inbox rotation and custom tracking domains in its feature grid, sells LinkedIn automation at $69 per account a month and calls and SMS at $29, and prices an AI SDR from $500 a month. Apollo puts a US dialer in its paid plans, drawing on credits. For larger teams, Reply.io publishes Agency Core from $210 a month and Apollo its Organization tier with a three seat minimum.

A feature list is a record of what a vendor chose to publish, so the right reading is that one page lists a capability and the other does not. It never supports a claim that only one of them can do the job.

Do You Need Both, And In Which Order

Standardise on one and use the other only where it does something the first cannot. Two multichannel sequencers pointed at one market is a duplicate-contact incident waiting for a busy week.

The cheapest way to answer that for a specific programme is to write down what stopped the last wave. A wave that stalled because nobody knew who to contact has a data problem. A wave that stalled because the mail landed in spam has an infrastructure problem. A wave that ran fine and produced replies nobody worked has neither, and buying a third tool will not fix it.

Integration Ecosystem

Apollo.io Integrations

Apollo's pricing page names CRM integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive, an Outreach and Salesloft integration, SendGrid and Mailgun, and LLM integrations over MCP; its FAQ adds Marketo, LinkedIn and all email providers.

Reply.io Integrations

Reply.io's pricing page names HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive, Copper, Zendesk and Close.io, then Zapier, Make and 100+ integrations, an API, an n8n node and MCP.

Shared Integrations

Both pricing pages name Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive, and both list MCP for AI assistants, so either tool can write to the same CRM record.

When to Choose Apollo.io

• You want the contact database and the sequencer on one seat price, with credits granted per seat
• You want a dialer and call recording inside the plan, with the US dialer drawing on credits
• You want intent topics and job change enrichment for targeting
• You want to start free: Apollo's Free plan is $0 with 2 sequences

When to Choose Reply.io

Start from the main job the tool has to do. If it is finding people, Apollo's database and per-seat credits are the product. If it is sending at volume, Reply's Email Volume prices the people you contact and lists unlimited mailboxes. If it is running several channels in one sequence, price Reply's Multichannel and Apollo's Professional side by side, $89 against $79 per user a month billed annually.

• You send from many mailboxes and want the price to follow the people you contact rather than the seats
• You want LinkedIn, SMS and WhatsApp steps in one sequence on Multichannel
• You run an agency and want client workspaces under Agency Core
• You want an AI SDR sold as its own plan, from $500 a month

Using Both Together

If both stay, split them by motion rather than by stage: one runs cold, the other runs named accounts, and a single suppression list sits above both.

House practice makes that manageable rather than theoretical. RevenueFlow runs one message per campaign, with no thread replies and no bump sequences behind it, so a prospect who appears in two systems receives at most one message from each rather than two escalating threads from both. The suppression list sits above the tools and is loaded into each of them before anything sends.

Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive appear on both pricing pages' integration lists, and those shared connectors are where a duplicate is easiest to catch, because both systems can write to the same CRM record.

Rollout Notes

Before the first wave goes out, in this order:

1. Name the system that owns the contacted-already list.
2. Load suppression into both tools before either sends.
3. Send one message per campaign, with no bump step behind it.
4. Check the sending mailboxes are warmed and authenticated.
5. Agree in writing what counts as a qualified meeting.
6. Point replies at one inbox a person actually reads.

Switching between these two is mostly a data exercise. Export the contacted list from the outgoing tool before the licence lapses, because a suppression list you cannot reconstruct is the expensive part of a migration. Re-authenticate the sending mailboxes in the new system rather than assuming the connection carries over, and give any newly connected mailbox a warming period before it carries real volume. Meetings are qualified against criteria agreed in writing before launch, and that definition should survive the tooling change unchanged.

Decision Shortcut

1. Name the binding constraint. List quality, sending capacity, or what happens after a reply. One of the three is costing more than the other two.
2. Check what is already paid for. sales engagement platforms and cold email platforms overlap more than their category labels suggest, so read both feature lists before adding a line to the invoice.
3. Price a realistic year, not a headline. Include the add-ons each tool needs to reach parity with the other.
4. Decide who owns suppression. One system holds the contacted-already list, and both read from it.
5. Re-check in a quarter. Whichever tool you bought second should have a measurable job by then, or it is a renewal to cancel.

Related Reading

• Best Apollo.io Alternatives in 2026
• Best Reply.io Alternatives in 2026
• Apollo.io vs Outreach: Sales Engagement Platform Comparison
• Apollo.io vs Salesloft: Sales Engagement Platform Comparison
• Instantly vs Reply.io: Which Cold Email Platform Fits Your Outreach Strategy?

If you would rather have this run for you, RevenueFlow books qualified meetings on a pay-per-meeting basis and publishes client results.

Pricing and features are taken from the vendors' own pages. Verify current terms with the vendor before relying on them.