Provenance
Every source cited on this site
Statistics, vendor pricing pages and the carrier rate card, each with what it is cited for, whether we reached the primary source, the sample size where the source discloses one, and an archive link where one exists.
MNAbhi ChawlaLast substantive update
Statistics and benchmarks
Used in the guides and on the homepage. 'Secondary' means the figure originates in a study we could only reach through another site's report of it; 'estimate' means it is our own editorial judgement and not a measurement.
| Figure | Claim | Source | Year | Sample | Type | Retrieved | Archive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $53,088 per violation | The maximum civil penalty the FTC can seek under Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, which covers Telemarketing Sales Rule violations including the calling-hours rule in 16 CFR 310.4(c), is $53,088 per violation in the current text of 16 CFR 1.98(d), as adjusted at 90 FR 5581 (17 January 2025). | 16 CFR 1.98(d), eCFR current text | 2025 | not applicable; regulation | primary | 2026-10-05 | pending |
| $500 per call, up to 3x for willful or knowing violations | 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3) gives "$500 in damages for each such violation" for robocall and autodialer violations; 227(c)(5) gives "up to $500" for violations of the do-not-call and calling-hours regulations, and only to "a person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity". In both, the court may increase the award to "not more than 3 times the amount available" for willful or knowing violations. 227(c)(5) adds an affirmative defense for a caller that "has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures". | 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3) and 227(c)(5), Telephone Consumer Protection Act | 1991, as amended | not applicable; statute | primary | 2026-10-05 | pending |
| 200,000+ | Cold calls placed by SDR teams the author ran at LeanICP and Meetings Machine, by the author's own estimate. MRR Nerds has not reviewed an export and the figure is not independently verified. | Abhi Chawla, author's own estimate | not specified | none; a personal estimate, not a measured count | estimate | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| 26.0% of cold calls reached a live person; 7.4% became a conversation of one minute or more (72,339 calls) | Allo analysed 72,339 cold calls placed through its own power dialer on US and Canadian numbers between 1 July and 30 September 2026. 26.0 percent reached a live human and 7.4 percent turned into a conversation lasting one minute or more. Allo states it cannot report a meeting-booked rate because too few teams tag call outcomes, and it publishes no per-rep daily volume. | Allo, María Correa, "Cold Calling Statistics: Connect Rates, Best Times and Call Length From 72,339 Calls" (6 October 2026) | 2026 | 72,339 calls by Allo power dialer users, 1 July to 30 September 2026 | primary | 2026-10-12 | pending |
| 0.45% reply rate on 7,530,489 cold emails; 34,393 replies; over 1,200 appointments | Belkins analysed 7,530,489 cold emails sent in client campaigns from January to December 2025 and tracked 34,393 replies, a 0.45 percent reply rate measured as unique replies over emails sent, excluding auto-replies and bounces. It states the campaigns booked over 1,200 appointments. Open tracking was disabled for the whole year. US sends (5.6M+) replied at 0.51 percent. Founders and owners replied at 0.57 percent, C-level at 0.42 percent and VPs at 0.32 percent. | Belkins, Margaret Lee, "What are B2B cold email response rates? Belkins' 2026 study" (updated 26 June 2026) | 2025 | 7,530,489 cold emails in Belkins client campaigns, January to December 2025 | primary | 2026-10-11 | snapshot |
| 9.9% connect rate per dial; 24.5% of prospects reached at least once; about 3 attempts per prospect | Belkins logged more than 175,000 B2B cold call dials through 2025. 9.9 percent of dials reached a live person, and 24.5 percent of unique prospects were reached at least once when called multiple times, across an average of about three dial attempts per prospect. | Belkins, Michael Maximoff, "B2B cold calling statistics 2026: Benchmarks from 175,000+ dials" (26 June 2026) | 2025 | 175,000+ dials logged by a B2B appointment-setting agency through 2025 | primary | 2026-10-02 | snapshot |
| 4.6% of conversations booked a meeting; roughly one meeting per 370 dials | In the same 175,000+ dial dataset, Belkins reports that 4.6 percent of conversations booked a meeting and that it took roughly 370 dials to book one meeting end to end. Belkins states that calling typically enters its sequences after email silence, as a third or fourth touch, so the prospects had usually already received email. By seniority, every C-level positive outcome was a follow-up request by phone or email; none booked live on the call, and Directors produced the largest share of booked meetings. Of the outcomes that did not book a meeting, 9 percent were a request for a follow-up by email. | Belkins, Michael Maximoff, "B2B cold calling statistics 2026: Benchmarks from 175,000+ dials" (26 June 2026) | 2025 | 175,000+ dials logged through 2025; outcome and seniority breakdowns from five anonymised client campaign exports | primary | 2026-10-11 | snapshot |
| Median 112 daily activities (44 phone, 41 email, 19 LinkedIn, 8 text/other); 4.1 quality conversations a day; phone-centric teams 56 dials and 4.6 quality conversations, email-centric 28 dials and 3.4 | The Bridge Group's 2025 sales development research, an online survey of 351 B2B companies run in 2024 and 2025, reports a median of 112 total daily activities per SDR: 44 phone, 41 email, 19 LinkedIn and 8 text or other. SDRs average 4.1 quality conversations a day, which the report calls the first rebound in the study's history. Phone-centric teams average 56 dials and 4.6 quality conversations a day; email-centric teams 28 dials and 3.4. | Bertuzzi, M. (2025). Sales Development Models, Metrics & Compensation: 2025 Research Report (10th ed.). The Bridge Group (published 6 February 2025) | 2025 | 351 B2B companies, online survey, 2024 to 2025; figures are company-reported medians and averages, not call logs | primary | 2026-10-12 | pending |
| 6 to 8 attempts | It takes an average of six to eight touch attempts to reach a prospect on the phone, yet most reps stop after two. | Brevet Group | 2024 | not disclosed | secondary | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| 4 to 5pm local | Late afternoon, between 4pm and 5pm in the prospect's own time zone, consistently produces the highest connect rates, with 11am to 12pm the second-best window. | CallHippo / Gong aggregate | 2025 | 50,000+ calls (CallHippo) | secondary | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| 4.8% | The average cold call connect rate across B2B outbound sits under 5%, meaning roughly one conversation for every 20 dials. | Cognism | 2025 | not disclosed | secondary | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| 1.55 attempts to reach a prospect (2.9 in 2025); 2.7% success rate (2.3% in 2025); 82-second average call (93 in 2025); Thursday best day | Cognism's State of Cold Calling in 2026 report states that 1.55 calls are now needed on average to reach a prospect, against 2.9 attempts in the previous year's data; that the industry average success rate rose to 2.7 percent from 2.3 percent; that the average cold call lasts 82 seconds, down from 93; that 10 to 11am is the most effective window with 2 to 3pm second; and that Thursday remained the standout day, with Tuesday overtaking Wednesday for second and Friday trailing. The report does not publish how an attempt is counted or the date range of the calls. | Cognism, "The State of Cold Calling in 2026" | 2026 | 200,000+ calls, as stated by Cognism; date range and attempt definition not published | primary | 2026-10-02 | snapshot |
| About 3 attempts to reach a prospect; 93% of conversations by the third call; 2.3% success rate; 93-second average call | Cognism's 2025 State of Cold Calling Report, as quoted on Cognism's own statistics page, found that connecting with a lead takes three cold call attempts on average, that 93 percent of conversations occur by the third call, that the average cold calling success rate is 2.3 percent and that the average cold call lasts 93 seconds. Cognism's 2026 report gives the 2025 attempts figure more precisely as 2.9. | Cognism, State of Cold Calling Report 2025, quoted on Cognism's "Cold calling statistics" page (published 19 March 2025, updated 7 May 2026) | 2025 | 204,000+ cold calls and 27,000+ conversations, as stated by Cognism; Cognism's own customer and SDR data | primary | 2026-10-02 | snapshot |
| 52 calls a day across all industries; real estate 98, insurance 85, financial services 72, technology/SaaS 55; outbound SDR 68, account executive 35, B2C telemarketing 135 | Focus Digital, a marketing agency, states that the average across all industries is 52 cold calls a day per rep, and publishes per-industry and per-role figures: real estate 98, insurance 85, financial services 72, technology and SaaS 55, outbound SDR 68, account executive 35, B2C telemarketing rep 135. It describes the figures as compiled from industry studies and its own internal data and gives no sample size or weighting. The twelve industry figures average about 69, so the 52 headline does not follow from its own table. | Focus Digital, "Average Cold Calls Per Day: 2025 Benchmarks" (11 September 2025) | 2025 | not disclosed; a compilation of other studies plus the agency's internal data | secondary | 2026-10-12 | pending |
| Free; one form reaches First Orion, Hiya and TNS; no guarantee of redress | Free Caller Registry is "brought to you by" First Orion, Hiya and TNS and registers outbound business numbers for free. Each of the three call protection providers "may each verify and use the Registration Data" and sends its own acknowledgement. The site states that registration "does not guarantee redress based on analysis that each call protection provider does independently." No processing time is published. | Free Caller Registry (First Orion, Hiya, TNS) | 2026 | not applicable; operator's own terms | primary | 2026-10-06 | snapshot |
| 43:57 | The highest-converting discovery calls have the rep talking 43% of the time and listening 57%, per conversation-intelligence analysis of hundreds of thousands of calls. | Gong Labs | 2024 | not disclosed | primary | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| 1.5% baseline; "How have you been?" 10.01%; "How are you?" 5.2%; "Did I catch you at a bad time?" 0.9% | Gong Labs measured meeting-booking success by opening line across 90,380 cold calls. The baseline was 1.5 percent. "How have you been?" booked at 10.01 percent (6.6 times baseline), "How are you?" at 5.2 percent (3.4 times), openers stating "the reason for my call" at 2.1 times baseline, and "Did I catch you at a bad time?" at 0.9 percent, 40 percent below baseline. | Gong Labs, "Cold call opening lines" | 2018 | 90,380 cold calls | primary | 2026-09-30 | snapshot |
| Connect rate 7.18% without a voicemail, 5.17% after (28% lower); email replies 2.73% without, 5.87% after one or two, 2.2% after three or more | Gong Labs' voicemail analysis, stated as covering 300M+ cold calls, found that leaving voicemails reduces the connect rate on later dials by 28 percent and raises the email reply rate from 2.73 percent to 5.87 percent after one or two voicemails, falling to 2.2 percent after three or more. It also states that the time spent leaving voicemails would allow 25 percent more cold calls, and that callbacks are rare. Gong's parenthetical reads "5.17% after VMs, 7.18% with voicemails", labelling both figures as with voicemail; the stated 28 percent reduction holds only as 7.18 percent without and 5.17 percent after, which is how MRR Nerds reports it. | Gong Labs, Armand Farrokh, "Should you leave voicemails when cold calling? Here's what the data says" | 2024 | 300M+ cold calls, as stated by Gong; counts behind each figure not disclosed | primary | 2026-10-01 | snapshot |
| "Heard the name tossed around?" 11.24%; permission-based 11.18%; "How's your day going?" 7.6%; "Did I catch you at a bad time?" 2.15% | Gong's 2024 analysis, stated as covering 300M+ cold calls, ranked four openers by success rate: "Heard the name tossed around?" 11.24 percent, a permission-based opener (lead with context, own the cold call, ask permission to pitch) 11.18 percent, "How's your day going?" 7.6 percent, and "Did I catch you at a bad time?" 2.15 percent, the lowest of the openers validated. The article does not define success or state the baseline as a number. | Gong Labs, Armand Farrokh, "The best and worst cold call openers" | 2024 | 300M+ cold calls, as stated by Gong; per-opener counts not disclosed | primary | 2026-09-30 | snapshot |
| Not interested 17%; product fit 17%; no budget 16%; not my responsibility 13%; hang-up 11% (top five, 74%); dismissive 49.5%, situational 42.6%, existing solution 7.9% | Gong Labs' objection analysis, stated as covering 300M+ cold calls, found the five most common cold call objections were "Not interested" (17 percent of objections), "Product fit (not made for us)" (17 percent), "No budget" (16 percent), "Not my responsibility" (13 percent) and a hang-up (11 percent), together 74 percent of all objections. It groups objections into three types: dismissive (49.5 percent: not interested, call me in 6 months, send me some information, not my responsibility, where'd you get my number, I'm in a meeting, is this a cold call, I thought you were someone else, hang-up), situational (42.6 percent: too expensive, no budget, no resources or bandwidth, need to hire someone first, product fit) and existing solution (7.9 percent: in-house, known competitor, unknown competitor, stuck in a contract). The five per-objection shares are printed in a chart image on the article, read in a browser; the three type shares and the 74 percent are in its text. | Gong Labs, Armand Farrokh, "We found the top objections across 300M cold calls; here's how to handle them all" | 2024 | 300M+ cold calls, as stated by Gong; the number of objections counted is not disclosed | primary | 2026-10-07 | snapshot |
| Successful calls 5:50 against 3:14; talk-to-listen 55:45 on successful calls against 42:58; prospect monologue 3.5 s against 8 s; 77% more speaker switches a minute | Gong Labs analysed cold calls recorded on its platform (90,380 in the opening-line dataset; "over 100,000" cold calls in the database at the time) and compared calls that booked a meeting with calls that did not. Successful cold calls averaged 5 minutes 50 seconds against 3 minutes 14 seconds. Reps talked 55 percent of the time on successful cold calls and 42 percent on unsuccessful ones. The prospect's longest uninterrupted stretch averaged 3.5 seconds on successful calls and 8 seconds on unsuccessful ones. Successful calls had 77 percent more speaker switches a minute, a We-to-I ratio 35 percent higher and an Our-to-My ratio 55 percent higher. The duration and talk-ratio figures are printed in chart images on the article, read in a browser; the rest are in its text. | Gong Labs, Chris Orlob, "Essential cold calling tips: 17 proven techniques for success" | 2018 | 90,380 cold calls (opening-line dataset), as stated by Gong | primary | 2026-10-08 | snapshot |
| Hiya co-developed AT&T Call Protect; free Hiya Connect number registration plus a one-time review | Hiya's press release of 30 March 2018 says AT&T Call Protect was developed through "joint efforts with AT&T". Hiya's help article for a business whose number is labelled spam says to start with Hiya Connect Number Registration, "a free service", and then submit the affected number for a one-time review. No review time is published. | Hiya, "Hiya Receives 2018 AT&T Supplier Award" (30 March 2018); Hiya support, "My phone number is labeled as spam: how to fix it" | 2018 to 2026 | not applicable; vendor documentation | primary | 2026-10-06 | snapshot |
| 21x | The odds of qualifying an inbound lead drop by a factor of 21 when the first call goes out at 30 minutes instead of 5 minutes, and the odds of reaching the person at all drop by a factor of 100. | James Oldroyd, MIT Sloan, with InsideSales.com (Lead Response Management study) | 2007 | 6 companies, 15,000+ leads and 100,000+ call attempts over 3 years | secondary | 2026-09-05 | pending |
| 150 to 350 dials per hour | Klenty's own parallel dialer feature page advertises "Make 340+ Calls Per Hour" in its hero and "Execute 150-350 dials per hour" in its capabilities block, alongside "10+ conversations per hour", for a dialer it defines as running "2 to 10 lines". This is a per-dialing-hour figure. It is not a working-day figure and the page does not say how many dialing hours a day it assumes. | Klenty | 2026 | not disclosed; a vendor capability claim, not a measurement | primary | 2026-09-19 | pending |
| 4.8% | Cold voicemails get a callback roughly 4.8% of the time. The figure is widely repeated and attributed to Marchex, but on 2026-10-01 MRR Nerds could not locate the study it comes from, so it is treated as an untraced industry figure. | Marchex (attributed; primary study not located on 2026-10-01) | 2024 | not disclosed | secondary | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| 35 to 50 dials | A rep dialing manually from a spreadsheet or CRM typically completes 35 to 50 dials in a full day once note-taking and dialing time is counted. | MRR Nerds editorial estimate; not a measured dataset | 2026 | none; editorial estimate | estimate | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| 120 to 200 dials | A single-line power dialer with auto-advance and one-click dispositions moves the same rep to roughly 120 to 200 dials per day, because the dead time between calls disappears. | MRR Nerds editorial estimate; not a measured dataset | 2026 | none; editorial estimate | estimate | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| 300 to 600 dials | A parallel dialer running three or four lines reaches 300 to 600 dials per rep per day, though every vendor's headline figure assumes a clean, well-scrubbed list. | MRR Nerds editorial estimate; not a measured dataset | 2026 | none; editorial estimate | estimate | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| ~100 to 150 dials/number/day | Carrier analytics engines commonly begin flagging a number as Spam Likely somewhere north of 100 to 150 outbound dials per day from a single number with a low answer rate, which is why number rotation exists. | MRR Nerds editorial estimate; not a measured threshold | 2026 | none; editorial estimate from carrier analytics guidance | estimate | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| $20 to $100 | Conventional and FHA mortgage leads are advertised at roughly $20 to $100 each, VA and reverse leads at $50 to $150, and jumbo leads at $100 to $200. These are ranges published by a lead-distribution platform, not prices MRR Nerds paid or measured. | Phonexa, a lead-distribution platform quoting its own market | 2025 | not disclosed; vendor-published ranges | secondary | 2026-09-05 | pending |
| March 2026 | The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act, Public Law 119-36, bars a credit bureau from selling a mortgage trigger lead unless the buyer certifies the consumer's authorisation or already holds that consumer's mortgage, servicing or deposit relationship. Signed 5 September 2025, effective 180 days later, which falls in early March 2026. | Public Law 119-36, U.S. Government Publishing Office | 2025 | not applicable; the enacted text of a federal statute | primary | 2026-09-05 | pending |
| 57% | 57% of C-level and VP buyers say they prefer to be contacted by phone, higher than any other seniority level. | RAIN Group | 2025 | not disclosed | primary | 2026-09-04 | pending |
| Predictive, Preview, Progressive, HCI, Manual | RingCentral's own RingCX documentation states: "RingCX has multiple dial modes available, each serving specific operational needs: Predictive, Preview, Progressive, HCI (Human Call Initiator), and Manual." No power dialer appears in that list. A separate RingCentral marketing page states that "A power dialer, also referred to as a progressive dialer, is a piece of telephony technology that automates the dialing of leads in a list." | RingCentral support documentation | 2026 | not applicable; a vendor's own product documentation | primary | 2026-09-19 | pending |
| 44.63% connect rate on verified numbers; 3.51 attempts per prospect before a connection (median 2) | Saleshandy analysed 7,699 cold calls placed through its own dialer between July and August 2026 and reported a 44.63 percent connect rate on verified numbers, and an average of 3.51 attempts per prospect before a successful connection, with a median of 2. The same article credits its 1.55-attempts, 2.7 percent success-rate and call-length figures to Cognism. | Saleshandy, Anil Salvi, "I Analyzed 7,699 Cold Calls: Here's 60+ Statistics for Outbound Sales in 2026" (21 August 2026) | 2026 | 7,699 calls by Saleshandy Dialer users, July to August 2026 | primary | 2026-10-02 | snapshot |
| 8 to 12% on generic data; 18 to 22% on verified mobile direct dials | SkipCall, a dialer vendor, states these connect rates and credits the 8 to 12 percent figure to Cognism's 200,000-call report. Cognism's State of Cold Calling 2026 report, read on 2026-10-04, contains no connect-rate percentage and no split by number type, so the figures are treated as SkipCall's unsourced claim. | SkipCall, Charles Baldet, "Cold call connect rate benchmarks" (12 May 2026) | 2026 | not disclosed | secondary | 2026-10-04 | snapshot |
| Scam Likely; Scam ID powered by First Orion | T-Mobile's ScamShield page describes Scam Likely as "a caller label that helps warn you when [T-Mobile] identifies an incoming call as a likely scam." First Orion's own post on T-Mobile's 2017 Scam ID launch says incoming calls on the T-Mobile network are analysed by First Orion's network service and tagged "Scam Likely". | T-Mobile ScamShield page; First Orion, "T-Mobile Rolls out Scam ID Powered by First Orion" | 2017 to 2026 | not applicable; carrier and vendor documentation | primary | 2026-10-06 | snapshot |
| Potential Spam, Robo Caller, Potential Fraud | Verizon's Call Filter FAQ defines three incoming-call labels: Potential Spam ("unwanted callers that may be calling indiscriminately or inappropriately to a large number of recipients"), Robo Caller ("automated caller with a pre-recorded message") and Potential Fraud. It sends callers whose legitimate number is mislabelled to a Verizon feedback form, which names only "our third party spam analytics provider" and states that a submission "may not result in a change to how future calls are labeled." | Verizon, Call Filter FAQs, and Verizon Voice Spam Feedback | 2026 | not applicable; carrier's own documentation | primary | 2026-10-06 | snapshot |
| 12.73 dials to connect on direct numbers; 18.83 on switchboard numbers | Demand-generation firm Vorsight reported that it takes 12.73 dials to connect when calling direct phone numbers and 18.83 dials when calling switchboard numbers, roughly 7.9 percent against 5.3 percent per dial. Quoted by Gartner (originally TOPO) without a year or sample size; Vorsight's own study was not located. | Vorsight, quoted in Gartner, "The Sales Development Team: A Proven Framework for Success" (originally TOPO, Craig Rosenberg; dated 27 September 2019) | 2019 or earlier | not disclosed | secondary | 2026-10-04 | snapshot |
| 75.5 to 83.1 percent of TCPA filings each month in 2025 were class actions; 1,052 TCPA class actions in the first half of 2025 against 539 a year earlier | WebRecon's litigation data, published by TCPAWorld, showed class actions at 75.5 to 83.1 percent of monthly TCPA filings in 2025, up from 32.0 to 68.1 percent in 2024, and 1,052 TCPA class actions filed in the first half of 2025 against 539 in the first half of 2024, a 95.2 percent rise. | WebRecon data via TCPAWorld, Eric J. Troutman, "Midyear litigation report" (25 July 2025) | 2025 | all federal TCPA filings tracked by WebRecon, January to June 2025 | secondary | 2026-10-05 | pending |
Vendor pricing pages
Each is the source of that vendor's prices on this site, with the method and archive link from its verification record.
| Vendor | Cited on | Source | Method | Verified | Archive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DialSheet | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-27 | pending |
| PhoneBurner | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-10-09 | snapshot |
| Orum | review, alternatives | page | third-party estimate (klenty.com (2026-03-13), vendr.com) | 2026-09-26 | snapshot |
| Nooks | review, alternatives | page | third-party estimate (vendr.com (57 purchases), marketbetter.ai) | 2026-09-07 | snapshot |
| Kixie | review, alternatives | page | third-party estimate (checkthat.ai (verified 2026-03-30)) | 2026-09-05 | snapshot |
| Aircall | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-08 | snapshot |
| JustCall | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-26 | snapshot |
| Close CRM | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-04 | snapshot |
| Salesfinity | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-04 | snapshot |
| Mojo Dialer | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-04 | snapshot |
| REDX | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-21 | snapshot |
| Vulcan7 | review, alternatives | page | third-party estimate (cloudtalk.io/blog/vulcan7-pricing (2026-09-13), hooquest.com/dialers/vulcan7 (2026-09-13), enzodialer.com/resources/comparisons/vulcan7-pricing (2026-09-13)) | 2026-09-13 | pending |
| CloudTalk | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-12 | snapshot |
| Myphoner | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-04 | snapshot |
| Readymode | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-10-05 | snapshot |
| Trellus | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-28 | snapshot |
| Koncert | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-16 | snapshot |
| Dialpad Sell | review, alternatives | page | third-party estimate (nextiva.com (2026-08-24), cloudtalk.io) | 2026-09-17 | snapshot |
| Apollo.io | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-10-05 | snapshot |
| RingCentral | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-28 | snapshot |
| Allo | review, alternatives | page | read from vendor pricing page | 2026-09-23 | pending |
Carrier rate card
Twilio US local voice pricing, https://www.twilio.com/en-us/voice/pricing/us, read 2026-09-04, archived. Used by the telephony cost model on every page that shows an all-in figure.
A source missing from this list is a defect. Report it to abhixchawla@gmail.com.