How we work
Methodology & transparency
What we count, what we refuse to guess, and how money never touches the numbers.
- Every price is read from the vendor's official pricing page on the date shown (
date_checked). If the page is JS-rendered, ambiguous, or self-contradictory, the value is marked unverified and the source used is linked. - We never guess. Missing data is shown as "no data".
- Calculator models list prices only: base + per-seat + per-contact + extra mailboxes, cheapest fitting plan. Add-ons and taxes excluded.
- Deliverability: only third-party inbox-placement tests are cited; vendor self-reported claims are excluded. Publishers may have commercial interests (noted).
- Affiliate links and sponsor slots are labeled and never affect table order, calculator results or comparisons. See affiliate disclosure.
- Raw data: data/tools.json.
Benchmarks
Published inbox-placement tests
| Source | Smartlead | Instantly | Lemlist | Independent? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cotera - Smartlead vs Instantly (30 days, GlockApps seeds) | 87.4% | 84.1% | – | unclear | Same campaign on both; Instantly dipped to 78% in week 2. |
| Cotera - Instantly vs Lemlist (90 days, GlockApps seeds) | – | 82.7% | 84.9% | unclear | 3,600 leads split, 6 mailboxes each. |
| Puzzle Inbox - 3-way 90-day test | 91% | 89% | 88% | no - inbox vendor | Publisher sells pre-warmed inboxes; methodology thin. |
| Something Inc - 14-day GlockApps test | 88% | 81% | 74% | unclear | Spam/missing split only published for Smartlead. |
Where sources disagree
- Lemlist ranges from 74% (Something Inc) to 88% (Puzzle Inbox) and beats Instantly in Cotera's test but trails it in the other two.
- Smartlead leads Instantly in every test found, but by 2-7 points.
- No independent test found for Apollo, Clay, Reply.io, Saleshandy or Woodpecker - shown as 'no data', not guessed.
- Vendor self-reported numbers (e.g. Instantly '30% higher inbox placement', Saleshandy testimonial claims) are excluded.