HubSpot vs Reply.io
Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?
The short answer
HubSpot is the stronger AI pick in Sales Engagement: it has a visibility score of 55.6 versus 14.4 for Reply.io, and ranks ahead in 65% of the answers that name both.
Choose HubSpot if…
- You want the brand AI engines rank higher (55.6 vs 14.4)
- You want a free plan to start
- You need SOC 2 Type II or SOC 3 coverage
- You prefer a larger, established vendor (5,000+ employees)
Choose Reply.io if…
- AI answers describe it more positively (42% vs 35% positive)
- You need SOC 2 or GDPR coverage
- Flat tiers pricing suits your budget better than per seat
- Multichannel outreach and AI-assisted engagement across email, calls, LinkedIn and more
AI visibility side by side
Latest weekly run · Nov 3
| Metric | HubSpot | Reply.io |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility score | 55.6% | 14.4% |
| Change vs last week | up+2.3% | down−3.3% |
| Rank in Sales Engagement | #1 | #6 |
| Share of voice | 11.8% | 3.5% |
| Mentions this run | 71 | 23 |
| Positive in AI answers | 35% | 42% |
The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.
Visibility score trend
Weekly runs over the last 60 days
HubSpot +2.3000000000000043pp · Reply.io −3.299999999999999pp over 1 weekly runs.
Engine by engine
HubSpot leads on 3 of 3 engines
Head to head in AI answers
20 engine answers name both brands
| Prompt | Engine | HubSpot | Reply.io |
|---|---|---|---|
| What are the best Sales Engagement tools in 2026? | Perplexity | #4 | #6 |
| Top sales engagement platform options for B2B SaaS companies | ChatGPT | #4 | #5 |
| Best sales engagement platform for startups | ChatGPT | #2 | #4 |
| Compare the leading Sales Engagement platforms | ChatGPT | #4 | #5 |
| Compare the leading Sales Engagement platforms | Perplexity | #3 | #6 |
| Alternatives to the most popular sales engagement platform | ChatGPT | #5 | #4 |
| Alternatives to the most popular sales engagement platform | Perplexity | #4 | #5 |
| Best sales engagement platform with AI features | ChatGPT | #4 | #5 |
| Most affordable sales engagement platform that is still reliable | AI Mode | #6 | #5 |
| Which Sales Engagement vendors do analysts recommend? | Perplexity | #4 | #9 |
| How much does a sales engagement platform cost per month? | ChatGPT | #6 | #3 |
| Which sales engagement platform offers a free trial? | AI Mode | #3 | #2 |
Features, pricing & fit
| Dimension | HubSpot | Reply.io |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Per seat | Flat tiers |
| Entry price | Free; paid from $7 per seat / mo | $49 / mo |
| Free plan | Yes | No · 14-day trial |
| Onboarding fee | $3,000 | — |
| Deployment | Cloud | — |
| Integrations | 2000+ | — |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II, SOC 3 | SOC 2, GDPR |
| Support | Phone | Live chat, Email, CSM onboarding |
| Founded | 2006 | 2014 |
| Headquarters | Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States | San Jose, California, US |
| Employees | 5,000+ | 51–200 |
| Funding | Corporate round | Series A |
| Best for | Startups, small and mid-sized businesses and enterprises wanting marketing, sales and service on one CRM. | Founders, sales teams, and agencies who need results fast without juggling 5+ tools. |
Plans side by side
HubSpot
Reply.io
Pros and cons
Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand
HubSpot
- intuitive, user-friendly interface
- generous free tier
- all-in-one CRM and marketing platform
- tight CRM integration for live chat and service
- good fit for startups and small businesses
- higher-tier costs and onboarding fees
- higher month-to-month pricing than annual plans
Reply.io
- Multichannel outreach and AI-assisted engagement across email, calls, LinkedIn and more
- 14-day free trial to test core sequencing and automation
- Transparent self-serve pricing with annual discounts
- Affordable, lower-cost option
- Strong choice for smaller and mid-market sales teams
Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 98.8%·next run
Cite as: SlateIndex, “HubSpot vs Reply.io”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/hubspot-vs-reply-io, data of Nov 3, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.