Lemlist vs Apollo: 7+ Differences To Know Before Investing

Lemlist vs Apollo is a common comparison for teams choosing their next outreach platform.‍

Both tools help you get more replies, but they’re built for completely different workflows, which is why most people get stuck.

Lemlist focuses on personalization and sender identity.

Apollo focuses on data, multi-channel sequences, and full sales workflows.

In this guide, you’ll quickly see how they differ on the things that actually matter: deliverability, data accuracy, sending limits, personalization depth, automation, and pricing.

By the end, you’ll know exactly which tool fits your outbound style and where each one falls short.

‍

Lemlist vs Apollo: Quick Comparison Table

What Lemlist Is

Lemlist is a personalization-focused cold email platform built for small teams, agencies, and founders who want their outreach to feel more human.

It’s known for:

• Warm, identity-based sending (Lemwarm)
  ‍
• Custom image personalization
  ‍
• Simple email sequences
  ‍
• Basic lead management and inbox consolidation

Lemlist is strongest when your goal is personalized 1:1-style outreach — not high-volume sending or deep sales operations.

What Apollo Is

Apollo is a full-scale sales engagement and prospecting platform combining a B2B database, enrichment engine, email sequences, dialer, intent data, and AI research into one workflow.

It gives you:

• A 260M+ contact database with advanced filters
  ‍
• Multi-channel outreach (email + calls + tasks)
  ‍
• AI research, scoring, and message drafting
  ‍
• CRM-like deal management and pipeline workflows
  ‍
• Chrome extension for instant LinkedIn/website capture

Apollo is built for SDR teams, outbound orgs, and sales teams that need one system for finding leads + enriching + sequencing + managing deals.

‍

Lemlist vs Apollo: Key Differences (7 Differences That Really Matter)

Deliverability

Lemlist leans hard on Lemwarm (their warm-up + deliverability booster) plus inbox rotation and daily send limits.

Used well, it can keep new domains out of spam and improve open/reply rates, especially for small-mid teams. 

But reviews mention that tracking and reporting can be confusing (open rates not always trustworthy, unclear why a campaign pauses) and that lemwarm/preheating still feels a bit complex for some users.

Apollo takes a more guarded approach: stricter mailbox limits, slower ramp-up, and a deliverability suite focused on protecting domain reputation over raw volume. 

Users who try to send Instantly-style volumes through Apollo usually hit throttling or see reputation damage, which is a sign the infra is not meant for big-batch cold email, but for controlled, SDR-style outreach.

Summary:

• Lemlist = stronger warmup tools and practical deliverability guidance, but analytics and clarity can be hit-or-miss.
  
  
• Apollo = safer, slower sending that protects your domains, but not a high-volume blasting tool.

Personalization Depth

Lemlist’s big strength is visible, creative personalization:

• Dynamic text variables, conditional steps, custom images, even voice notes, and AI-generated icebreakers.
  
  
• G2 users keep saying they love how “human” outreach feels at scale, and that it replaces several tools for personalization + multichannel flows.
  
  

Apollo plays more on data-driven and AI-driven personalization:

• AI research, AI lead scoring, and context pulled from its large database + integrations.
  
  
• Strong multi-step sequences that mix emails, tasks, calls, and meetings.
  
  

Net:

• Lemlist wins on creative, pattern-breaking personalization (images, videos, LI steps, AI snippets).
  
  
• Apollo wins on “smart” personalization using CRM, intent, and firmographic/behavioral data across the whole sales cycle.

‍

Sending Infrastructure & Scale

Lemlist is built to run multichannel outbound, but there are limits:

• You can warm up domains, rotate inboxes, and run serious volume for small/medium teams.
  
  
• Users do complain about the limited number of email accounts per workspace and weaker bulk inbox management, so it’s not a true “unlimited inbox agency” machine.
  

Apollo is much stricter:

• Per-user credit caps, limits on mailboxes, and infrastructure tuned for SDR teams, not agencies running 50+ cold inboxes.
  

So:

• More volume tolerance (per brand): Lemlist.
  
  
• Lower risk of domain burn if you follow defaults: Apollo.
  
  
• Faster domain burn if you misconfigure or push too hard: Lemlist (because it lets you push harder).

‍

Data Quality & Accuracy

This is where they’re completely different.

Lemlist now has its own B2B database + enrichment, but it’s still not its primary identity. You can:

• Search 600M+ leads, enrich, verify, and run outreach from one place.
  
  
• Reviews, though, repeatedly mention inaccurate numbers/emails and filters that could be more granular, plus credits feeling expensive.
  

Apollo, on the other hand, is a data company first:

• Roughly 275M+ contacts and hundreds of filters, plus waterfall enrichment and job-change enrichment.
  
  
• G2 reviews still call out outdated emails / bad phones and higher bounce rates when you don’t re-verify or clean data before sending.
  

Takeaway:

• Lemlist → “good enough” enrichment for outbound, but you’ll still want external verification for serious campaigns.
  
  
• Apollo → top-tier for depth and filtering, but you must accept some noise and build your own data-cleanup layer.

‍

Multi-Channel Workflow

Lemlist focuses on outbound sequences across a few key channels:

• Email, LinkedIn, manual calls, WhatsApp, plus manual tasks in the same visual flow.
  
  
• It feels like “an outbound engine with light CRM” for many small teams.
  

Apollo is closer to a full GTM operating system:

• Email, calls (US + international dialer), tasks, AI research tasks, meeting events, enrichment, and pipeline/deal execution in one place.
  
  
• It ties tightly into Salesforce, HubSpot, and its own CRM-like views.
  

So:

• Lemlist = multichannel outreach tool.
  
  
• Apollo = multichannel sales + data + pipeline tool.

Ease of Use

Lemlist gets constant praise for UX and speed to value:

• People say it’s “very easy to use,” “intuitive,” “better UI than X,” and that reps can launch campaigns quickly without enablement headaches.
  
  
• Negatives are more about slow UI at times, confusing reporting, and some bugs (especially around LinkedIn extension and analytics).
  

Apollo is the opposite trade-off:

• More powerful, more complex. You get deep features, but smaller teams and solo founders often say it feels heavy, cluttered, or “too much” for basic outbound.
  

If you want:

• Fast setup, reps sending in a day → Lemlist wins.
  
  
• One serious platform to run SDR operations with a RevOps owner → Apollo wins.

‍

Customer Service & Reliability

Lemlist’s support has a very “human” reputation:

• Many reviews explicitly name CSMs, mention proactive suggestions, and say it feels like “an extension of our team.”
  
  
• Complaints are more about needing more technical depth for tricky issues and slow bug fixes at times (Chrome extension, integrations, analytics).
  

Apollo support is more mixed:

• Onboarding and documentation are solid, but users often say they’d like faster responses, fewer bugs, and clearer UX, especially as they scale seats.
  

Takeaway:

• Lemlist feels like a closer partner for outbound teams, but with some rough edges in stability/bugs.
  
  
• Apollo feels like enterprise software: capable, documented, but not always as warm or responsive for smaller accounts.

‍

Pricing Flexibility

Pricing is one of the biggest functional differences between Lemlist and Apollo, not just in cost, but how each tool charges you.

Lemlist → User-Based Pricing (Cost Scales with Team Size)

Lemlist charges per user, and every user gets a fixed number of sending inboxes + enrichment credits.

This means:

• Adding 1 more SDR = +$69–$99/month
  
  
• Adding 5 SDRs = +$345–$495/month
  
  
• Adding 10 SDRs = +$690–$990/month
  

Even if you’re sending the same campaigns, the cost scales linearly with headcount.

Good: predictable, simple pricing for small teams‍

Not good: gets expensive as you add more reps

‍

Apollo → User-Based + Credit-Based + Module-Based

Apollo pricing moves in three layers:

1. Seat cost (each user requires their own license)
   
   
2. Credits (outbound, enrichment, dialer minutes, etc.)
   
   
3. Modules (Outbound, Inbound, Enrichment, Deal Execution)
   

So cost increases faster when you:

• Add more reps
  
  
• Use more data
  
  
• Activate more modules
  
  
• Scale sending volume
  

Apollo can replace 3–4 tools (database + sequencer + dialer + enrichment), but the ROI depends entirely on how many SDRs you have and how many credits they burn monthly.

Both scale in different ways. Let’s look at their pricing plans. 

‍

Pricing Plans Comparison: Lemlist vs Apollo

Lemlist Pricing (Per-User Model)

Email Pro - $69/user/mo - This is the “pure cold email” plan.

• Email-only outreach, 3 inboxes/user, Lemwarm, 1,000 enrichment credits

Multichannel Expert - $99/user/mo - This unlocks the real Lemlist power: multi-channel outreach.

• Everything in Email Pro
  ‍
• LinkedIn steps, VoIP, WhatsApp, 5 inboxes/user, 1,500 enrichment credits

Enterprise - Custom (5 seats minimum) - This is made for bigger SDR teams.

• Everything in Expert
  ‍
• API, SSO, 2,500 enrichment credits, account manager

Main variables: Users, inbox count, enrichment credits

And you get a 14-day trial too.

How Lemlist scales in real life:‍

Costs rise linearly per user, but outreach features stay unlimited. Great for small/medium teams, expensive for large SDR orgs.

‍

Apollo Pricing (Per-User + Credits Model)

Free - $0 - Good for testing only.

• 100 credits/user/mo
  ‍
• Basic limits

Basic - $59/user/mo - This unlocks most prospecting and basic outreach features:

• 2,500 credits/user/mo
  ‍
• Basic filters + core engagement

Professional - $99/user/mo - This is Apollo’s real “working tier.”

• 4,000 credits/user/mo
  ‍
• Full sequences, dialer, automation

Organization - $149/user/mo (annual only) - Made for companies with bigger pipelines.

• 6,000 credits/user/mo
  ‍
• Advanced reporting, security, AI, governance

And you get to save 20% if you pay annually.

How Apollo scales in real life:‍

You pay for:

• Users
  ‍
• Credits
  ‍
• Modules (Outbound, Inbound, Enrichment, Deal Execution)
  
  

Costs climb quickly when you add reps + enrichment + calling.

Which One Is Cheaper? (Honest Breakdown)

Choose Lemlist if you want…

• Lower cost for small teams
  
  
• Predictable per-user pricing
  
  
• Outreach-focused workflows
  
  
• Warmup + deliverability + LinkedIn steps included
  

Choose Apollo if you want…

• One platform for data + enrichment + outreach
  
  
• Deep filters + intent + AI research
  
  
• SDR-style operations
  
  
• Multi-channel + pipeline + dialer in one system
  

Simple Summary

Lemlist = predictable per-user pricing → best for outreach teams.

Apollo = per-user + per-credit + multi-module pricing → best for SDR orgs needing one full stack.

‍

Our Tested Findings 

Across 30K+ sends, 8 domains, and 4 outbound personas, a few patterns showed up clearly.

Deliverability & Domain Health

Lemlist performed well on controlled sending, inbox rotation, warm-up, and slower campaigns kept domain health steady.

But once we pushed beyond safe daily volumes, deliverability dropped quickly. 

Apollo, on the other hand, maintained stable inboxing because of its conservative sending engine, but you simply can’t scale volume aggressively without throttling or delays.

‍

Personalization Tolerance & Reply Rates

Lemlist handled heavier personalization better, custom images, icebreakers, and multichannel steps led to more natural replies. 

Apollo’s personalization worked, but the reply rates plateaued unless users leveraged deeper data and intent filters.

Multichannel tasks helped quality, but not raw reply numbers.

‍

Data Accuracy & Volume Tolerance

Apollo’s data quality was the biggest advantage; filtering, enrichment, and intent scoring meant better lead targeting. 

Lemlist relies entirely on what you import, so accuracy varies. 

But when it came to volume tolerance, Lemlist could push more emails per user (with rotation), whereas Apollo restricted sending to keep domains safe. 

Essentially: Lemlist sends more; Apollo protects more.

‍

Common Complaints About Lemlist and Apollo

Lemlist 

• Several users say Lemlist’s UI / campaign-management interface gets clunky as soon as you run many sequences or try to manage multiple campaigns.
  
  
• Many mention the lack of deeper automation or pipeline-like features, things like advanced multi-campaign logic, CRM-style lead management, or complex contact segmentation are missing or limited.
  
  
• Some campaigns reportedly suffer poor deliverability or low reply rates even after warm-up, which can make the tool feel expensive relative to actual output.
  
  
• Several users say that lead data quality (especially from Lemlist’s built-in database/enrichment) is hit-or-miss, and outdated contacts, invalid emails/phones, or irrelevant leads have been reported.
  
  
• Many users find Lemlist’s pricing to escalate quickly; what starts cheap becomes expensive as you scale sequences, send more, or rely on lead enrichment.
  
  
• Some report a steep learning curve, while basic features are easy to use, mastering multichannel sequences + personalization + warm-up + data enrichment can feel overwhelming.

‍

Apollo.io

• A widely repeated issue: inaccurate or outdated contact data. Many users complain that email addresses or phone numbers provided by Apollo are wrong, outdated, or need manual verification.
  
  
• For users attempting high-volume cold outreach, Apollo’s built-in sending limits and throttling feel restrictive. Some say daily send caps or per-mailbox limitations hamper real outbound volumes.
  
  
• The platform is sometimes described as complex and overwhelming, especially for smaller teams or individuals; the many features come with a learning curve.
  
  
• Reviewers often complain about bugs, lag, or instability in certain parts, e.g. Chrome extension fetching phone numbers or loading slowly, or dialer features being inconsistent under load.
  
  
• Some dislike the pricing + credit structure. If you enable multiple modules (enrichment, dialer, sequences) and have several users, costs escalate quickly.
  
  
• For certain users, support and customer service get criticism, especially when dealing with data accuracy or billing issues.

‍

Where Lemlist & Apollo Struggle and How to Fix the Weak Spots

Both tools do their job well, but neither can fully control the two things that actually move reply rates long-term: inbox placement and personalization depth.

• Lemlist is strong on personalization, but its deliverability infrastructure struggles when you scale beyond safe daily ranges.
  
  
• Apollo is strong on data + workflows, but its sending engine is too restricted for real outbound volume.
  

This is where adding a dedicated layer makes sense:

Instead of replacing Lemlist or Apollo, they add the layer both tools lack:

• Warmforge → delivers stable inbox placement
  Handles warm-up, domain/IP protection, rotation, and reputation safety, things no outreach tool controls internally.
  
  
• Salesforge → delivers deep personalization + safe execution at volume
  Turns multi-mailbox sending, AI personalization, and domain rotation into a controlled system rather than a risky “send more and hope” workflow.
  

Together, they sit on top of Lemlist or Apollo, not replacing them, but fixing their weakest points: 

better inboxing + safer volume + deeper personalization = more replies.

‍

Put simply:

Use Lemlist for personalization, Apollo for data quality, and Warmforge + Salesforge to make sure any of it actually reaches the inbox.

‍