Small business▼−3Since September 2026: 6% → 2%, −3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 6% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 5 → 8 of 48
2 categories · RankedReply.io
64Judge labels
1First choices
11Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
2% in Sales engagement for small business buyers
Rank 13 of 66 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 12% of its 17 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Reply.io →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business7 of 49
2%33 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market13 of 66
0%17 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise43 of 45
0%8 labels
under the label threshold
In sales engagement · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading
Standing by category
Every category where a model named Reply.io for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales engagement platforms | Sales | 0% | 13 of 66 | 12% | 17 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Email deliverability and testing tools | Marketing | 0% | 108 of 110 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by GlockApps at 34% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Reply.io held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Sales engagement · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 8 → 12 of 62
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 21 → 43 of 45
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales engagement | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 8 → 13 of 66 |
| Email deliverability | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 108 of 110, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Reply.io across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Reply.io across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
By framing
Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.
FramingLabels by classFirst choices
Direct12 labels1
Paraphrase8 labelsNone
Comparative18 labelsNone
Budget-constrained6 labelsNone
Scale-constrained6 labelsNone
Negative14 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative64 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Often positioned as a multichannel engagement tool with strong automation for outbound workflows” Perplexity Sonar · Sales engagement · comparative prompt · alternative
“For a budget-friendly option with AI-driven prospecting, consider Reply.io.” Mistral Small · Sales engagement · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“The Cost-Effective Choice: Reply.io ... Reply is a strong contender.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Sales engagement · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Want multichannel automation at a mid-range price? → Reply.io” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Sales engagement · comparative prompt · alternative
And against it
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“Avoid using Reply.io's *deliverability features* as your primary monitoring tool.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email deliverability · negative prompt · hard negative
“Aggressive auto-renewal ... transparency issues make it risky.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Sales engagement · negative prompt · hard negative
“Be cautious with Reply.io due to setup complexity and pricing opacity” Mistral Small · Sales engagement · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Reply.io, over the 64 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Reply.io was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Reply.io, over the 64 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Reply.io was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.
What carried it into the answer
The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Reply.io. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 59 of the 64 answers that named Reply.io and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
blog.hubspot.com35
pipeline.zoominfo.com28
cloudtalk.io24
klenty.com24
g2.com23
resources.rework.com22
unifygtm.com21
artisan.co20
avoma.com20
mixmax.com18
235 of the 235 domain citations in answers naming Reply.io came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
reply.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Reply.io takes 0% of first choices and Apollo.io takes 35%.ShowHide
Search and answers
reply.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Reply.io takes 0% of first choices and Apollo.io takes 35%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “sales engagement platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “best sales engagement platform”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 720 a month (“reply.io”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 42 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 36,886 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 8,252 · 52 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 6,762
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 13 of 66 in sales engagement
Segment leader
35%
Apollo.io
- First choices
- 1 across its categories
- Named in
- 64 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 59 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on reply.io
2,177
subdomains included
Content
814
counted in the table below
Documentation
575
Product · Integration
17 · 98
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 592 | undated | CRM, SEO | ||
| Comparison | 78 | undated | |||
| Report or ebook | 56 | undated | |||
| Webinar or virtual event | 53 | undated | |||
| Glossary or explainer | 15 | undated | |||
| Case study | 7 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 6 | undated | |||
| Podcast or video | 4 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 2 | undated | |||
| News or press | 1 | undated |
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page reply.io exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as Reply.io
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Reply.io; a claim can dispute any of them.
Reply 3
Follow Reply.io
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Reply.io.ShowHide
The company
Reply.io.
ShowHideOn record
Wikidata- Website
- reply.io
- Headquarters
- San Jose, United States
- Founded
- 2014
Fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata · LinkedIn · Crunchbase
In its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- AI Sales Outreach & Cold Email Platform
- For
- sales teams
- Price stated
- Starts from $49 per user /month; Multichannel All-Inclusive outreach starts from $89 per user /month billed annually; Hire Jason AI SDR starts from $500 /month reply.io
- Starting price
- 49 reply.io
- Free plan or trial
- Try for free; free 14-day account; Start 14-day trial; No credit card required reply.io
- Integrations claimed
- 100 reply.io/pricing
- Certifications
- SOC II compliance report
- Customers named
- pr.coHotelsByDayPeopleProductifBelkinsTrafficPartnerTNWBusiness Radio X
- Not stated on the pages read
- Hosting
What Reply.io's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: reply.io, reply.io/pricing, reply.io/customer-stories, reply.io/integrations. A claimed page can correct any of them.
Is this your product?
Claim this page
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Reply.io's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Reply.io, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Reply.io by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Reply.io is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Reply.io, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.