Reply.io vs Woodpecker
Reply.io
Best for teams that outgrow per-seat pricing $49/Woodpecker
One slider, and the API as a $20 add-on $35/Reply.io vs Woodpecker is a comparison of two different ideas about what a plan is. At small volumes Woodpecker is much cheaper, and it includes unlimited email accounts, unlimited team members, unlimited verification and 8,000 sends in the base figure. At team scale Reply.io wins on the thing Woodpecker cannot match, which is one price for everybody logging in, plus LinkedIn, calls and SMS in the same sequence rather than LinkedIn at $29 per connected account.
Where they actually differ
Every value comes from the same record that drives the Sending APIs listing, so this table cannot disagree with the cards. Accented tags are data one provider returns and the other does not.
| Compare | Reply.io | Woodpecker |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Per seat below 10,000 contacts, unlimited users above it | Pay for contacted prospects, then buy the API separately |
| Entry price | $49/user/mo | $35/mo |
| Unit cost | Not sold by the unit | $0.07 per contacted prospect |
| Billing model | Subscription Per seat | Subscription Credit packs |
| Free tier | No free tier. 14-day trial with API access and 300 active contacts. | No free tier. 14-day trial, and the API add-on works during it. |
| GTM motion covered | Engage | Engage |
| Data returned | Work emailLinkedIn profileCRM records | Work emailLinkedIn profile |
| MCP server | Yes https://mcp.reply.io/ | Yes https://api.woodpecker.co/mcp/v1 |
| Interfaces | REST API MCP server Webhooks Bulk or async | REST API MCP server Webhooks |
| Auth | Bearer token on v3. A team Master API Key can impersonate a user | API key in an x-api-key header |
| Rate limits | v3: 100 req/min, 3,000/hour, 150,000 per rolling 7 days, per user. v1 and v2: 15,000 a month. | One request at a time, 6 queued, 15 second queue limit. Unlimited calls a month. |
| Coverage | Global | Global |
| Compliance | GDPR DPA | GDPR DPA |
| Best for | Best for teams that outgrow per-seat pricing | One slider, and the API as a $20 add-on |
Pick each one when
Reply.io
- More than two people will use it: unlimited users from the 10,000 contact tier.
- LinkedIn, calls and SMS belong in the same sequence as the email.
- 100 requests a minute and a published weekly quota, rather than a queue of six.
Woodpecker
- Volume is small and you want to pay for exactly what you send.
- The $20 add-on buying the API, webhooks, an MCP server and a CLI together is good value.
- Unlimited mailboxes, verification and team members with no fair usage ratio attached.
A sender's rate card is not the part that bites. Confirm the API is on the plan you intend to buy, then run one real sequence of 200 contacts through each on a mailbox you have already warmed, and compare what the API tells you afterwards: which replies it classifies, what it reports on a bounce, and whether the webhook arrives at all. None of that is on a pricing page.
What each one costs, tier by tier
Only one of these two publishes a rate card. Reply.io lists its tiers, and Woodpecker publishes an entry price and stops there, so half of this comparison is a number you have to go and get. Every figure is read off the vendor's own pricing page, and the pages they came from are listed at the foot of this one.
| The short version | Reply.io | Woodpecker |
|---|---|---|
| Cheapest paid plan | Email Volume, 1,000, $49 | Not published |
| Tiers published | 4 | None |
| Free tier | No free tier. 14-day trial with API access and 300 active contacts. | No free tier. 14-day trial, and the API add-on works during it. |
| Unit cost at entry | Not sold by the unit | $0.07 per contacted prospect |
The cheapest paid plan is rarely the plan you end up on, because what moves you up a tier is usually volume rather than a feature. The two rate cards below are what you are choosing between.
Reply.io
Reply.io publishes 4 tiers, none of them free, and the paid ladder runs from $49 to $210.
Email Volume, 1,000
- Unlimited mailboxes under fair usage, 25 at this tier
- Unlimited emails to active contacts
- 50 live data credits, 200 website visitor reveals
Email Volume, 10,000
- Unlimited users, no per-seat charge
- 250 mailboxes under the published ratio
- LinkedIn automation at $69 a month per account
Multichannel
- Unlimited active contacts
- 10 mailboxes annual, 5 monthly
- LinkedIn, calls, SMS and WhatsApp included
Agency Core
- Multiple client workspaces under one account
- Unlimited clients, users and mailboxes
- White label as an option
Woodpecker
Woodpecker publishes an entry price and nothing above it, so there is no rate card to put here. The published figure is $35/mo, and nothing above it is on the pricing page.
Get these in writing before you sign: the per-unit rate at your volume, the annual minimum, how many seats that price assumes, whether API access is included or an add-on. Without the first two you cannot compare this against anything else on this page.
What Reply.io and Woodpecker cost at your volume
Put your own volume in. The model picks the cheapest published plan that covers it on each side, which is the question a rate card cannot answer and the one that decides the bill.
Reply.io
Priced per seat, so the bill moves with headcount rather than with volume.
Woodpecker
Publishes an entry price and no ladder above it, so the figure below is a floor rather than a forecast.
Plans are read from each vendor's own pricing page and the model picks the cheapest one that covers you, so these are list prices before any discount you negotiate and before annual billing, which most of these vendors discount. Woodpecker publishes an entry price with no ladder above it, so the figure shown is the floor rather than your bill.
What a year costs at three volumes
The same plan-fit arithmetic as the model above, run out to a year, because an annual number is what a budget actually asks for. Reply.io is priced per seat, so that column does not move with volume. The figure shown is 3 seats for a year.
| A year at | Reply.io | Woodpecker |
|---|---|---|
| 1,000 a month | $1,764 Email Volume, 1,000 | $420 |
| 10,000 a month | $1,764 Email Volume, 1,000 | $420 |
| 50,000 a month | $1,764 Email Volume, 1,000 | $420 |
2 of the 2 providers here publish enough to be put in this table. These are list prices on the published plan that covers each volume, so they are the number before you negotiate and before annual billing, which most of these vendors discount by between a fifth and a half.
How this plays out once it is running
Reply.io has tiers on a slider of active contacts, $49 a user at 1,000 and then a flat $159 for unlimited users at 10,000, with the API included everywhere including the trial. Woodpecker has no tiers whatsoever: you move a slider on contacted prospects from $7.00 per 100, start at $35 a month for 500, and then tick the add-ons you want, which is where the API lives at $20 a month bundled with webhooks, an MCP server and a CLI.
The API shapes are also far apart. Reply.io v3 allows 100 requests a minute and publishes three windows. Woodpecker processes one request at a time with six queued and a 15 second queue limit, which is not a rate limit so much as a concurrency ceiling, and any request past the queue is dropped rather than delayed. Size the client for that before you write the first loop.
What each one is genuinely good at
Not a feature list. These are the things that make somebody keep paying after the novelty has worn off, which is a different question from what the marketing page leads with.
Reply.io
The API is on every plan, including the trial
Reply.io includes API access on all of its plans and on the 14-day trial, which carries 300 active contacts. Woodpecker sells the API as a $20 a month add-on, so the thing you are evaluating costs extra before you can evaluate it. For a build that has to be proved first, that gap decides it.
The fair usage rule is written down
Reply.io publishes the formula behind its unlimited mailbox claim, one mailbox per 40 active contacts, in its own support article. Nobody else in this category writes the rule down, which means everywhere else unlimited is a word rather than a number you can plan a sending infrastructure against.
Two API versions, with very different ceilings
v3 allows 100 requests a minute, 3,000 an hour and 150,000 a rolling week. The deprecated v1 and v2 are still live and allow 15,000 calls a month with a ten second floor between calls. That is a 43-fold difference, and checking which base path an inherited integration uses is the first thing to do.
Woodpecker
There are no plan tiers to be gated by
Woodpecker moves one slider on contacted prospects, starting at $35 a month for 500 and $7.00 per 100 at the bottom of the range. There is no Pro tier that unlocks the feature you need, because there are no tiers, which removes the most common pricing surprise in this category.
Unlimited email accounts and team members at every size
Both are included in the base figure at any slider position, along with unlimited email verification. On a product where mailboxes and seats are usually the lines that grow fastest, that is a genuinely different shape of bill.
The API add-on carries four things, not one
The $20 a month covers integrations, the API, webhooks, an MCP server and a CLI together. For a team that wants an agent to drive its sending, that MCP server on a $55 total monthly bill is one of the cheaper routes to it in this directory.
Where each one falls down
Every provider on this site has a case it handles badly, and the people who find out are the ones who bought it for that case. These are the ones worth knowing before you sign rather than after.
Reply.io
The pricing changes shape rather than scaling
Reply.io is per user up to 5,000 active contacts and then flat for unlimited users at 10,000. Two seats already cost more on the smaller plan than one does, so a team growing from one to three people hits a cliff that has nothing to do with volume. Model your headcount, not just your list.
LinkedIn is a separate charge
LinkedIn automation is $69 a month per connected account on top of the plan. For a multichannel motion with three reps that is $207 a month before any email is sent, and it is easy to miss when comparing the headline plan price against Woodpecker's slider.
Woodpecker
The API costs extra and nothing says so on the plan
Twenty dollars a month is not much, and it is still a gate: the base price buys a product without an API. The add-on does work during the 14-day trial, which is the saving grace, but a comparison made on headline prices alone gets this wrong.
One request at a time, with a six-deep queue
Woodpecker runs a single concurrent request with six queued and a 15 second queue limit, against unlimited calls a month. That is unusual: the monthly budget is infinite and the concurrency is one. A batch job has to be serial, and anything that fans out will time out in the queue rather than get a 429.
Everything else is an add-on too
LinkedIn is $29 per connected account, mailboxes are $4 to $6 each, and the API bundle is $20. The slider price is a starting point rather than a bill, and a realistic configuration lands well above the $35 headline.
Using Reply.io and Woodpecker together
A two-way comparison assumes the answer is one of them. On this pairing it often is not, and the arrangement below is what teams actually end up running.
These overlap almost entirely, so running both is a transition rather than a stack. The one arrangement that makes sense is evaluation: Woodpecker's API add-on works during the 14-day trial, so you can build against both and compare what each one actually returns before committing.
If you are migrating between them, the sequence that avoids paying twice is to move the sending domains last. Mailbox warmup history does not transfer, so the new platform starts cold on reputation however good its warmup pool is, and running both for one cycle is what tells you whether placement held.
Reply.io or Woodpecker, for you
Four questions, answered from the same records as the rest of this page. Nothing is sent anywhere and there is no result to email yourself.
Each answer leans one way. The recommendation appears here once you have picked at least two.
A tool like this can only weigh what is on the page. It does not know your segment, and the one test that does is the bake-off further down: real rows, cheapest entry on each side, spend divided by survivors.
Where an answer leans on a certification or an integration, it means that vendor publishes it on the pages this directory read, which is not the same as the other one lacking it. The sources are listed at the foot of the page.
Where the data comes from, and what you may do with it
The question that arrives late and expensively is not how good the data is, it is who is allowed to hold it. These are the fields each one returns, the coverage it claims and the compliance it publishes.
| Provider | Fields returned | Coverage | Compliance | Redistribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reply.io | Work email, LinkedIn profile, CRM records | Global | GDPR DPA | Not stated |
| Woodpecker | Work email, LinkedIn profile | Global | GDPR DPA | Not stated |
None of these states a redistribution position on its pricing or docs pages. Internally that never matters. Put the rows in something your customers can see and it becomes the question your legal team asks first.
Two practical notes that apply to every provider on this page. A compliance badge describes the vendor, not your use of it, so a GDPR DPA does not give you a lawful basis for the outreach you send. And every one of these vendors runs its own opt-out, which means a person who asks you to delete their record has to be removed from your copy as well as from theirs.
Moving between Reply.io and Woodpecker
Most readers of this page are already on one of these two. A swap is four hours of code and a month of watching, and the order below is the one that catches the expensive mistakes while they are still free.
Measure the thing you are about to lose
Run 500 rows you already have through Reply.io and record the match rate, the fields that came back populated and the cost. Without that number a migration cannot be judged, because every provider looks cheaper per unit than the one you are paying for today.
Check the fields, not the field count
Woodpecker does not return CRM records, which Reply.io does. If anything downstream reads crm records, that is a change to your pipeline and not just to your vendor.
Rewrite the auth and the limits, in that order
Reply.io authenticates with bearer token on v3. A team Master API Key can impersonate a user. Woodpecker uses API key in an x-api-key header.
The limits are the part that bites later. Reply.io rate: v3: 100 req/min, 3,000/hour, 150,000 per rolling 7 days, per user. v1 and v2: 15,000 a month.
Woodpecker rate: One request at a time, 6 queued, 15 second queue limit. Unlimited calls a month. A loop tuned to the first will either crawl or get throttled on the second.
Run both for one billing cycle
Keep the old key live and route a slice of real traffic to the new one. A month is the shortest honest test, because credit expiry, rollover and the overage rate only show up at renewal and those are where the surprises live.
Cancel on the renewal date, not before
Credits on most of these plans do not survive a downgrade. Check what happens to the balance you have already paid for, and time the switch so you are not buying the same records twice.
The step people skip is the first one, and it is the only one that cannot be done after the fact. Once the old key is off you have nothing to compare the new match rate against, so a provider that is quietly worse on your segment looks like a provider that is fine.
The wider field for both
A two-way comparison assumes the answer is one of these two. Often it is not, and the reason you are comparing them at all points somewhere else entirely: Reply.io alternatives both start from the reason people leave.
Reply.io alternatives
4The pricing cliff at 10,000 contacts is the reason to buy it. The per-seat tiers below that, and two live API versions 43x apart, are why people look.
See the alternatives →Everything in Engage
10The full category these two sit in, filtered by data returned, billing model and entry price.
Browse the category →Related comparisons
The 26 providers behind every pairing here are in the main listing.
Pairings that share a side with this one: Reply.io vs Salesloft, Instantly vs Woodpecker and Instantly vs Reply.io. Every comparison in the directory is on the compare hub.
Reply.io vs Salesloft
Every price published against none, and the only sales engagement API here that meters by the minute.
Compare them →Instantly vs Reply.io
Unlimited mailboxes with no stated ceiling against unlimited mailboxes with a published ratio.
Compare them →Instantly vs Woodpecker
Two $47 subscriptions you choose between, against one slider and a $20 tick box for the API.
Compare them →Comparison pages end at the rate card. Your list does not.
We run the bake-off on your actual data, pick the provider order, and build the pipeline behind it: waterfall routing, credit ceilings and the write-back that puts a verified contact in front of a rep the same day.
Worked with 300+ companies. A senior operator runs your account.
Reply.io and Woodpecker, answered
Read from the same records that drive the table above.
Is Reply.io or Woodpecker cheaper?
On the entry plan it is Woodpecker, $35/mo against Reply.io at $49/user/mo. The entry price is the comparable figure, because they do not meter the same thing.
Can I try Reply.io and Woodpecker for free?
Reply.io: No free tier. 14-day trial with API access and 300 active contacts. Woodpecker: No free tier. 14-day trial, and the API add-on works during it.
What are the rate limits on Reply.io and Woodpecker?
Reply.io: v3: 100 req/min, 3,000/hour, 150,000 per rolling 7 days, per user. v1 and v2: 15,000 a month. Woodpecker: One request at a time, 6 queued, 15 second queue limit. Unlimited calls a month.
Do Reply.io and Woodpecker both have MCP servers?
Both do. Reply.io: https://mcp.reply.io/. Woodpecker: https://api.woodpecker.co/mcp/v1.
Which is better, Reply.io or Woodpecker?
Reply.io vs Woodpecker is a comparison of two different ideas about what a plan is. At small volumes Woodpecker is much cheaper, and it includes unlimited email accounts, unlimited team members, unlimited verification and 8,000 sends in the base figure.
What are the downsides of Reply.io and Woodpecker?
Measured against each other rather than in general. Reply.io: there is no free tier, only a trial, so test your own list inside its limits before paying. Woodpecker: there is no free tier, only a trial, so test your own list inside its limits before paying.
Can you use Reply.io and Woodpecker together?
These overlap almost entirely, so running both is a transition rather than a stack. The one arrangement that makes sense is evaluation: Woodpecker's API add-on works during the 14-day trial, so you can build against both and compare what each one actually returns before committing.
Can I migrate from Reply.io to Woodpecker without losing data?
Not without losing a field. Woodpecker does not return CRM records, which Reply.io does, so anything downstream that reads it has to change. Either way, measure your match rate on 500 rows before you switch, because that number is the one you cannot recover afterwards.