GTM AI Index
Index Sales Sales engagement › Apollo.io vs Klenty
Sales engagement platforms · September 2026 Edition

Apollo.io vs Klenty

Five of twelve models named Apollo.io first on the direct prompt; zero named Klenty. Apollo.io was named by twelve of the twelve models and Klenty by nine and Apollo.io carries 57 labels and Klenty 17, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Apollo.io

endorsed leader

San Francisco, United States, founded 2015. Named in twenty categories this edition.

Klenty

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

First-choice share33%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate16%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#5A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels5717A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Apollo.io reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Salesloft was named alongside these two in twelve of the twelve direct answers. Salesloft vs Apollo.io · Salesloft vs Klenty · Apollo.io vs Outreach

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the sales engagement platforms page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Apollo.ioFirst choices, of twelve modelsKlenty
Direct50
Paraphrase40
Comparative11
Budget-constrained621 against Apollo.io
Scale-constrained101 against Klenty
Negative018 against Apollo.io
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Apollo.io and Klenty stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
Apollo.io Klenty first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Apollo.io on the left and Klenty on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Apollo.io and Klenty stood in it.

Apollo.io first, Klenty not the choice

5 of 12 modelsKlenty was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Mistral SmallApollo.io alternatives: Outreach, Salesloft
DeepSeek V4 FlashApollo.io alternatives: Groove, HubSpot Sales Hub, Salesloft
Llama 4 MaverickApollo.io, Outreach, Salesloft
Kimi K2Apollo.io alternatives: Outreach, Salesloft
GLM 4.7 FlashXApollo.io alternatives: Salesloft

Neither was the first choice, one was named

6 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice alternatives: Apollo.io, HubSpot Sales Hub, Outreach, Salesloft
Gemini 3.5 FlashSalesloft alternatives: Apollo.io, HubSpot Sales Hub
Perplexity SonarSalesloft alternatives: Apollo.io, HubSpot Sales Hub, Outreach
Grok 4.1 FastSalesloft alternatives: Apollo.io, HubSpot Sales Hub
Qwen 3.7 FlashSalesloft alternatives: HubSpot Sales Hub, Klenty, Outreach
MiniMax M2.5Outreach alternatives: Apollo.io, Salesloft

Neither was named

1 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniSalesloft alternatives: HubSpot Sales Hub, Outreach

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Apollo.io leads by thirty-seven points.
Apollo.io50%#1 of 13
Klenty13%#2 of 13
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Apollo.io leads by twenty-nine points.
Apollo.io33%#2 of 10
Klenty4%#5 of 10
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Apollo.io leads by two points.
Apollo.io2%#5 of 7
Klenty0%#– of 7
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Apollo.io

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.

“Apollo.io is the most cost-effective platform on the market because it consolidates your contact database and your outreach tool into one platform.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Klenty

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.

“lightweight SMB tools (Mixmax, Apollo, Klenty) may strain your governance needs” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · soft negative
“Klenty and Apollo suit SMB and mid-market outbound teams; ... Klenty, Reply, and Mailshake are the strongest picks” Claude Haiku 4.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“1. Klenty ... Offers multi-channel cadences, native CRM integrations ... at a fraction of enterprise costs.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Safer bets for most (higher consensus positives): Klenty/Reply.io/Lemlist/Instantly for SMB/mid-market” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · first choice
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.