Cold email agencies for SaaS, and what their numbers actually mean
Six agencies publish SaaS proof. They publish it in six different units - appointments, positive replies, MQLs, pipeline, ARR, percent of an unstated target - and 12 of 15 published figures carry no denominator at all. This page puts every claim in one table with the URL it came from, and measures the two published rates against 81 of our own campaigns. For the wider category rather than the SaaS slice, the best outsourced SDR companies are compared on published price and commercial model.
Every SaaS claim, side by side
Selected SaaS claims from the vendor pages reviewed on 12 August 2026. Each row retains the reported outcome unit and source. These are historical, self-reported case claims; confirm current offers and the underlying records with the provider before buying.
| Agency | Client or claim | What they publish | Unit | Denominator given? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ReplyLead our own published distribution read 12 August 2026 | Reply rate, pooled | 2.55% | unique replies / leads contacted | yes - 6,038 over 236,927 |
| Reply rate, median campaign | 2.12% | unique replies / leads contacted | yes - 81 campaigns | |
| Belkins belkins.io/case-studies read 12 August 2026 | Autodesk | 35 appointments in 4 months | appointments | no |
| Autodesk | 110% of KPI achieved | percent of an unstated target | no | |
| Terrascope | 56 enterprise opportunities, $2.2M pipeline | opportunities and pipeline dollars | no | |
| Healthcare SaaS, unnamed | 44 qualified meetings in 5.5 months | meetings | no | |
| Growth Rhino growthrhino.com read 12 August 2026 | Sortly, Series A inventory SaaS | 112+ positive replies, 50 meetings, $225K new ARR | positive replies, meetings, ARR | no |
| Halo AI | 60+ positive replies in 30 days | positive replies | no | |
| ShareChest, fintech | 11.4% reply rate, 47 meetings a month at peak | reply rate | no - the base is not stated | |
| SalesCaptain salescaptain.io read 12 August 2026 | Elastic | $320,000+ new revenue in 2022 | revenue | no |
| B2B SaaS, unnamed | 45% positive reply rate | positive reply rate | no - the base is not stated | |
| B2B SaaS, unnamed | 50+ booked meetings | meetings | no | |
| Martal Group martal.ca/saas-lead-generation read 12 August 2026 | B2B SaaS, unnamed, 8 months | 22,832 emails, 112 replies, 544 leads, 416 MQLs, 66 SQLs, 62 booked meetings | a full funnel | partly - emails and replies are both given |
| Jedox | testimonial only, no metrics | none | no | |
| SalesHive saleshive.com/pricing read 12 August 2026 | Pricing | "$0 Setup fees, ever" is the only number on the pricing page | setup fee | not applicable |
12 of 15 published figures give no base. "50+ booked meetings" out of how many contacted? "112+ positive replies" from what volume? These are real results and we have no reason to doubt any of them - but as published they cannot be turned into a rate, which means they cannot be compared to each other or to what you would get.
The exception worth crediting. Martal Group publishes both halves: 112 replies from 22,832 emails over eight months. That is a figure a reader can actually compute (0.49 percent of emails sent), and it is the only competitor claim on this page that survives contact with arithmetic. The same case gives 62 booked meetings from 544 leads, or one meeting per 8.8 leads worked.
Named clients are rarer than case studies. Of Belkins' 13 published case studies, 5 are software or SaaS, and 3 of those name the client. Across all 6 live agencies here, 4 of the 15 published figures describe an unnamed client, which removes the last way a reader could verify them independently.
What those rates look like measured
Two of the claims above are rates rather than counts: Growth Rhino publishes 11.4 percent for ShareChest, and SalesCaptain publishes 45 percent for an unnamed SaaS client. Neither states a base, so neither can be checked. What we can do is show what those numbers would mean against a set that does state its base - ours.
The retained 12 August 2026 snapshot covers 115 campaigns with sends; 81 campaigns contacted at least 500 leads and qualify for this comparison. They contain 236,927 contacted leads and 6,038 unique replies: pooled 2.55%, median 2.12%, 25th percentile 1.38% and 75th percentile 2.97%. Automatic replies are included. These are cumulative campaign observations across five client and two internal programmes, not SaaS-only results or a fixed-duration trial. See reply-rate distribution and methodology.
Place a claimed rate against a measured set
Choose one of eight reference rates. Without JavaScript, the default comparison is 11.4%; all cohort definitions and representative statistics remain readable.
Comparison limits. A position against our campaign sample does not test a vendor's claim, establish a performance ceiling or forecast your results. Lists, offers, audiences, time periods and reply definitions differ. Ask for each rate's numerator, denominator and automatic-reply treatment before comparing it with this sample.
Check the evidence behind a shortlist
Confirm the provider's current service, contracting entity, source pages and dated client references. A case study describes a selected engagement; ask how its audience, scope and outcome definitions compare with your planned campaign.
A site that is temporarily unavailable does not prove that a company has closed. Verify availability and service status through current public records before drawing a conclusion.
How to check any of it yourself
Four questions, in the order that removes the most uncertainty per minute. None of them requires you to trust this page.
1. What is the base?
For a rate, request the numerator and denominator; for a count, ask for the reporting period and activity volume. A missing public denominator limits what a reader can verify. It does not establish whether the vendor measures campaigns internally.
2. What counts as a reply, a meeting, a qualified lead?
A positive reply requires an explicit classification rule. Ask how automatic replies, referrals, objections and buying interest are treated. Our sample counts unique replies divided by contacted leads and includes automatic replies; it does not measure positive replies, held meetings or closed revenue. See the definitions and limitations.
3. Ask for representative campaign percentiles
In our eligible 81-campaign sample, the 25th percentile is 1.38%, the median 2.12% and the 75th percentile 2.97%. These are positions in a distribution of campaign rates, not calendar quarters or average rates for the top and bottom quarters. Ask for representative results alongside selected case studies.
4. Check the domain still resolves
Check that the current service and its cited case studies remain accessible. A broken link or temporary DNS failure is a reason to verify, not proof that a provider is no longer trading.
The technographic data tool can inspect public domain signals. DNS observations can suggest infrastructure providers; they do not verify service quality, legal status, a complete technology stack or campaign outcomes.
| Ask | A usable answer | If they cannot answer |
|---|---|---|
| What is the base? | "112 replies from 22,832 emails" - both halves, as Martal publishes | The public claim lacks enough context for an independent rate comparison |
| What counts as a reply or a meeting? | Separate definitions for replies, positive replies, booked meetings and held meetings, with explicit treatment of automatic replies and no-shows | Outcome stages may be defined differently, preventing a fair comparison |
| What are your representative campaign percentiles? | A defined cohort with representative percentiles; our eligible sample has P25 1.38%, median 2.12% and P75 2.97% | Selected case studies do not establish the typical outcome |
| Does the domain resolve? | The site loads and the case studies are still on it | Current source availability needs confirmation; an outage alone does not prove closure |
Method
The vendor claims
Every figure in the table was read from the vendor's own live page on 12 August 2026, and each row names the URL. Nothing is taken from a directory, a listicle or a press release. Where a vendor publishes several SaaS figures we list them all rather than choosing the most flattering or the least.
Our own numbers
The first-party sample comes from the retained 12 August 2026 snapshot: 115 campaigns with sends, of which 81 contacted at least 500 leads. The eligible sample contains 236,927 contacts and 6,038 unique replies, pooled 2.55%, median 2.12%, P25 1.38% and P75 2.97%. Automatic replies are included. The population spans five client and two internal programmes and is not a SaaS-only benchmark. Definitions and limitations.
What we are not claiming
- That any vendor is exaggerating. We cannot know, and that is the point - an uncheckable figure is uncheckable in both directions.
- That our rates are a ceiling or forecast. Another audience or offer may produce different results. These observations do not predict a competitor's performance or your campaign.
- That we are the best choice for SaaS. We have no named SaaS case study to show, which on this page's own criterion counts against us and is stated in the table.
- That this list is complete. These are selected publicly documented examples. Other providers exist; inclusion is not certification or a performance ranking.
Our standards are on methodology and editorial standards.
Related
If you are weighing quotes, ask each vendor for the base behind their headline number. We publish ours whether it flatters us or not.
Apply to work with us