Comparison · 2026

Hunter vs Apollo (2026)

Hunter and Apollo.io are both all-in-one sales platforms. Each pairs a lead database and AI writing with a sequencer, sells inboxes inside the tool and confirms an official MCP server. The Hunter vs Apollo choice comes down to the sending side. Apollo confirms warm-up in the price, automatic SPF/DKIM/DMARC and inbox placement tests. Hunter says warm-up isn't in its price and doesn't state the other two, but it confirms a unified inbox, which Apollo doesn't state.

Every fact is from the vendor's own site, same rules for everyone · Method · Disclosure

Huntertied for 23rd · from $55.13/mo

Apollo.io16th · from $59/mo

The verdict

Apollo.io scores 73 in Cold Email Index and ranks 16th of 35 cold email tools; Hunter scores 60 and is tied for 23rd. Deliverability explains the gap: Apollo gets 28 of 40 points there and Hunter gets 7, and only Apollo confirms warm-up, automatic SPF/DKIM/DMARC and placement tests. Hunter wins on workflow, 23 of 30 against 15, and only Hunter confirms a unified inbox. Both take full marks for API and AI agents and for buying terms. Hunter has the lower entry plan, $55.13 a month against $59. Pick Hunter if lead data and writing help are the main job; pick Apollo if you want warm-up and sending checks handled in the same account.

Choose Hunter if

you mostly want lead data and AI writing next to the sequencer
you want replies from every inbox in one unified inbox, which Apollo doesn't state
you already warm up inboxes elsewhere and want the lower entry plan, $55.13 a month against $59

Choose Apollo if

you want ongoing warm-up included in the price instead of running it in another tool
you need automatic SPF/DKIM/DMARC and inbox placement tests inside the same account
the higher index score matters to you: 73 against Hunter's 60

Score by group

	Hunter	Apollo
Deliverability	7/40	28/40
Workflow	23/30	15/30
API and AI agents	15/15	15/15
Buying terms	15/15	15/15
Total	60/100	73/100

Pricing

	Hunter	Apollo
Cheapest plan	$55.13/mo	$59/mo
Inbox, smallest package	$6.01	—
Inbox, at volume	no volume discount	—
Free plan, trial or refund	Yes ↗	Yes ↗
Monthly billing	Yes ↗	Yes ↗

Monthly billing, from each vendor's pricing page: Hunter pricing ↗ · Apollo.io pricing ↗

Feature by feature

Each condition as the vendor states it on its own site; ↗ opens the source.

	Hunter	Apollo
Ongoing warm-up included in the price	No ↗	Yes ↗
Pre-warmed inboxes	Not stated	Not stated
Automatic SPF, DKIM and DMARC setup	Not stated	Yes ↗
Inbox placement or spam tests	Not stated	Yes ↗
Replacement of burned inboxes or domains	Not stated	Not stated
Dedicated IP option	Not stated	Not stated
Unified inbox for replies	Yes ↗	Not stated
Multi-client workspaces or white-label	Not stated	Not stated
AI writing or AI reply handling	Yes ↗	Yes ↗
Built-in lead database	Yes ↗	Yes ↗
Public API	Yes ↗	Yes ↗
Official MCP server	Yes ↗	Yes ↗
Prices published on the site	Yes ↗	Yes ↗
Sells inboxes inside the product	Yes ↗	Yes ↗

Questions and answers

Is Hunter cheaper than Apollo?

Hunter is cheaper to start: $55.13 a month vs $59 for Apollo.

Which scores higher, Hunter or Apollo?

Apollo scores higher: 73/100 vs 60/100. The biggest gap is in deliverability: 7 vs 28 points.

Do Hunter and Apollo include warm-up?

Hunter does not offer ongoing warm-up; Apollo includes ongoing warm-up.

Do Hunter and Apollo both include a lead database?

Yes. Both confirm a lead database and AI writing on their own sites, and both sell inboxes inside the tool. Both also confirm a public API and an official MCP server. So lead data alone won't decide between them; the sending setup and the unified inbox will.

Reviews: Hunter · Apollo.io · Apollo alternatives · Hunter alternatives