Cold email out-produced cold LinkedIn DM by roughly 8x and cold calling by roughly 40-50x on a time-adjusted basis in a 100,000-touch-per-channel study, and it did so on speed: email placed its full 100,000 touches in a single day of sending, where LinkedIn DM needed two months and cold calling needed a full year to move the same volume. Cleverly is a LinkedIn-first lead generation agency with cold email and cold calling as priced add-ons. This is a channel-economics comparison of the two models.
As of July 2026, StoneHaven's published campaign data holds 98% inbox placement and a 2.82% bounce rate across 183,524 cold emails sent in one 10-day run.
The 8x time-adjusted gap, measured rather than argued
Most agencies argue their channel is best on vibes. A one-year, 100,000-touch-per-channel test settles it with numbers instead: the same volume of outreach sent down three different channels, tracked all the way from send to closed deal, with the calendar time each channel needed recorded alongside the result.
100,000 sends, one channel each, tracked for a full year:
| Channel | Volume | Time to place the volume | Reply / connect rate | Booked calls | Close rate | Deals closed | Time-adjusted output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cold email | 100,000 sends | 1 day of sending | 1.46% reply | 21 | 14% | 3 deals | Baseline (1x) |
| LinkedIn DM | 100,000 touches | 2 months | 13.1% reply | 129 | 10.5% | 14 deals | ~1/8th of email |
| Cold calling | 100,000 dials | Full year of dialing | 32.4% pickup | 379 | 7% | 27 deals | ~1/40th to 1/50th of email |
The multiple comes almost entirely from the third column. Cold email's 100,000 sends went out in a single day, since email infrastructure scales to volume that a human sender or dialer cannot match. LinkedIn's 100,000 touches took two months to place, bound by connection-request limits and per-seat daily caps. Cold calling's 100,000 dials took a full year, bound by how many calls one dialer can physically make. Normalise each channel's output against the window it needed, and email's single sending day annualises to roughly 8x the LinkedIn-led program and roughly 40-50x the calling program over the same calendar period.
On a time-adjusted basis, cold email out-produced cold LinkedIn DM by roughly 8x and cold calling by roughly 40-50x in the 100,000-touch-per-channel study, placing its full volume in one day against two months and a full year.
The honest half of the story sits in the reply column. LinkedIn DM's 13.1% reply rate beats cold email's 1.46% by nearly 9x, and industry benchmarks separately put LinkedIn DM at roughly 10-15% reply, the strongest B2B direct-message channel that exists. Anyone selling LinkedIn outreach on reply rate alone is not lying, and this study confirms that advantage rather than disputing it. What the study adds is the clock: a per-touch advantage of 9x does not survive a channel that needs sixty times as long to place the same number of touches.
Quick comparison
| StoneHaven | Cleverly | |
|---|---|---|
| Core model | Managed outbound, booked-pipeline accountability | LinkedIn-led lead generation, email and calling sold as add-ons |
| Primary channel | Cold email first, cold calling and cold DM layered on | LinkedIn Outreach flagship; Cold Email and Cold Calling offered as separate tiers |
| Infrastructure model | Isolated dedicated domains and inboxes, diversified across Google, Outlook, and private SMTP | Not published; site describes "end-to-end technology stack" without infrastructure specifics |
| Published deliverability data | 98% inbox placement, 1-3% bounce floor, reply rates with denominators | Not published as of July 2026 |
| Engagement model | Scoped to the program, quoted on a call | Per-channel monthly pricing published on its site |
| Reporting transparency | Campaign dashboards with denominators | Client dashboard described; no public inbox-placement or bounce figures |
| Best-fit buyer | B2B companies from Series A through enterprise and government-adjacent, across SaaS, cybersecurity, finance, defense, aerospace, manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, legal, insurance, real estate and e-commerce, with a reachable market and a deal size that supports a program | Smaller B2B teams wanting a lower entry point, LinkedIn-heavy buyers |
Engagement model
As of July 2026, Cleverly sells per-channel monthly packages, with LinkedIn outreach at the entry point and cold calling with a dedicated SDR at the top of the range.
StoneHaven does not publish a price list. Each program is scoped to the client's volume and channel mix and quoted on a discovery call, the same way most outbound programs above a certain scale are sold. The differentiator on this page is the channel math above: StoneHaven's measured study put cold email at roughly 8x cold DM time-adjusted, off a single day of sending against two months.
Where the LinkedIn-led model genuinely wins
LinkedIn DM's raw reply rate is the best-documented channel advantage in this comparison: 13.1% against cold email's 1.46% in the 100K-per-channel study, and roughly 10-15% in generic industry benchmarks, the strongest B2B direct-message channel that exists. It also reaches executives who screen their inbox hard but still open a connection request from a real person with a real mutual contact.
Choose Cleverly if: your total addressable market is a few hundred to a couple of thousand named accounts, so there is no volume left for email's speed advantage to exploit. Or your buyers live on LinkedIn and largely ignore cold email. In both cases a per-touch reply advantage matters more than throughput, and the clock never gets a chance to work against you.
LinkedIn DM carries the highest raw reply rate of any B2B direct-message channel at roughly 10-15%, a genuine advantage independent of any single vendor.
That advantage holds until the clock starts. StoneHaven's counter is throughput: a buyer with 30,000 or more reachable prospects gets more booked pipeline per month of calendar time from StoneHaven's email-first program even at the lower 1.46% per-touch reply rate, because email placed 100,000 touches in one day where LinkedIn needed two months for the same volume, a roughly 8x time-adjusted gap.
Infrastructure and deliverability: the transparency gap
High-performing email outbound runs isolated dedicated sending domains and inboxes, diversified across Google, Outlook, and private SMTP, with SPF, DKIM, and DMARC authentication as table stakes rather than an edge (see RFC 7208 for SPF and RFC 7489 for DMARC). That standard exists because a shared or under-authenticated sending setup collapses into the spam folder the moment volume climbs, and no amount of good copy fixes a domain reputation problem.
StoneHaven's published programs meet that standard with numbers attached: 98% inbox placement from the first send, a 1-3% bounce floor and 0-0.24% unsubscribe rate across every campaign it runs, at up to 250,000 sends a month per program. In a single 10-day run of 183,524 cold emails, StoneHaven held an 11.94% reply rate with 46% of replies flagged interested and a 2.82% bounce rate. A separate 231,347-email run held a 0.97% bounce rate against a 4.96% reply rate.
StoneHaven's published campaign data shows a 231,347-email run holding a 0.97% bounce rate, evidence of the deliverability floor a diversified sending stack can hold at scale.
Cleverly's site describes "email infrastructure for maximum deliverability" and "advanced campaign metrics" in its client dashboard, and as of July 2026 it does not publish inbox-placement, bounce, or reply-at-volume figures for either its email or LinkedIn programs. This page compares what each provider publishes and does not characterize Cleverly's actual results either way.
StoneHaven's published aerospace and defense programs have separately held 98% inbox placement at 100,000-plus sends a month, evidence that the deliverability standard holds across verticals rather than one flagship case.
Where StoneHaven May Not Fit
A buyer with a narrow, well-defined list of a few hundred named accounts has no volume for a time-adjusted advantage to act on. If your addressable market is that small, or your buyers ignore the inbox and respond only to relationship-style LinkedIn touches, a single-channel LinkedIn program is the more rational place to start, and StoneHaven's speed advantage will not do anything for you. That is a real fit gap that applies to both models honestly.
Where StoneHaven Fits
The standard worth holding any outbound provider to: published inbox placement, a bounce figure with the send count behind it, and a channel decision backed by a measured comparison rather than a single channel's marketing.
StoneHaven's documented programs have held 98% inbox placement and a bounce rate between 1% and 3% across every campaign, at up to 250,000 sends a month per program, and its own channel testing is what produced the 100K-per-channel study cited throughout this page.
Best for: B2B companies from Series A through enterprise and government-adjacent, across SaaS, cybersecurity, finance, defense, aerospace, manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, legal, insurance, real estate, e-commerce and more, with a reachable market and a deal size that supports a program.
It is likely a fit if your addressable market can absorb volume, generally a reachable pool of 30,000 or more prospects, and your deal size justifies a scoped, multi-month program built around published deliverability data. It is likely not a fit if your total addressable market is a few hundred named accounts, or if your buyers live on LinkedIn and largely ignore cold email. In either of those cases a single-channel LinkedIn program is the more rational starting point, and this page is meant to help you see that honestly rather than route every reader to the same close.
If a booked-pipeline program built on published deliverability data and a time-adjusted channel strategy fits how you want to grow, StoneHaven's team can walk through the numbers.
FAQ
How much does Cleverly cost? As of July 2026, Cleverly sells per-channel monthly packages on its site, with LinkedIn outreach, cold email and cold calling bought separately and each tied to a stated monthly prospect, send or dial volume. StoneHaven does not publish rates; every program is scoped to volume and channel mix and quoted on a discovery call. Behind a cost question sits a simpler one: what does a month of the program actually buy? StoneHaven answers that in output, publishing 532 sales calls booked in a single month adding $379,000 in MRR, and 70 to 80 booked calls a week sustained. Ask any provider for a booked-call count over a defined window and the outreach volume behind it.
Is Cleverly worth it? That turns on the size of your reachable market. A LinkedIn-led program is a reasonable buy for a team working a few hundred named accounts, because LinkedIn DM carries the highest raw reply rate of any B2B direct-message channel at roughly 10-15%. The thing this question is really testing is whether a month of spend turns into a month of pipeline. On that measure StoneHaven's 100,000-touch-per-channel study put cold email at roughly 8x cold DM time-adjusted, because email placed its full 100,000 touches in one day of sending against two months for DM, and StoneHaven programs run at up to 250,000 sends a month. This page does not characterize Cleverly's client results either way.
What are the best Cleverly alternatives for B2B outbound? The alternatives split by channel model. LinkedIn-led agencies compete on DM reply rate. Appointment-setting shops like Belkins compete on meeting volume. Email-first managed outbound like StoneHaven competes on time-adjusted output. A shortlist only gets you so far, because the hard part is putting the candidates on one evidence standard. StoneHaven makes that comparison possible by publishing its own side of it: 98% inbox placement from the first send, a bounce rate held between 1% and 3% across every campaign, up to 250,000 sends a month per program, and a 231,347-email run at 0.97% bounce.
Is Cleverly legit? Yes. Cleverly is a real LinkedIn lead generation agency that publishes its services, channel packages and pricing on cleverly.co as of July 2026, and it runs LinkedIn outreach, cold email and cold calling programs for clients. Legitimacy is the low bar, though, and the thing worth verifying before you sign is whether a provider will show you program-level numbers with the send volume behind them. StoneHaven publishes exactly that: 98% inbox placement from the first send and a 2.82% bounce rate across 183,524 cold emails in one 10-day run, with an 11.94% reply rate on those sends and 46% of replies flagged interested.
Does LinkedIn DM really get better reply rates than cold email? Yes, on raw reply rate. The 100,000-touch-per-channel study measured LinkedIn DM at a 13.1% reply rate against 1.46% for cold email, and industry benchmarks put LinkedIn DM at roughly 10-15% broadly, the strongest B2B direct-message channel there is. Reply rate settles only half of what you are weighing, since the other half is how long a channel needs to place the volume. Email placed its 100,000 touches in one day where LinkedIn needed two months, a roughly 8x time-adjusted gap in email's favour, and StoneHaven holds that speed at up to 250,000 sends a month per program with 98% inbox placement from the first send.
Cleverly vs StoneHaven: which is better for cold email? Cleverly is built LinkedIn-first and sells cold email as a separate priced lane, and its site does not currently publish inbox-placement or bounce figures for that lane. A buyer asking this wants to know whose email actually reaches the inbox and pulls replies. StoneHaven answers with run data: 98% inbox placement from the first send, an 11.94% reply rate across 183,524 emails in a 10-day run with 46% of replies flagged interested, a 2.82% bounce rate on that same run, and unsubscribe held between 0% and 0.24% across every campaign.
What is the best outbound agency for SaaS, cybersecurity or defense companies? There is no single best one, so the practical filter is whether a provider has held deliverability at volume in a technical or regulated vertical rather than in one flagship consumer case. What a question like this is really trying to establish is that the results carry over to a buyer like you. StoneHaven's published aerospace and defense programs held 98% inbox placement at 100,000-plus sends a month with reply rates of 2.4% to 5.6%, and it runs programs across SaaS, cybersecurity, finance, defense, aerospace, manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, legal, insurance, real estate and e-commerce, from Series A through enterprise and government-adjacent buyers.
Methodology
StoneHaven figures are drawn from StoneHaven campaign-dashboard data and published program case studies, cited with their denominators and sending period: 183,524 emails over a 10-day run (July 2025), 231,347 emails to 77,115 leads in one workspace, and the 100K-per-channel channel study conducted over a one-year period. Cleverly's pricing and service descriptions are drawn directly from cleverly.co, fetched July 26, 2026; a dedicated pricing subpage returned no content and pricing was verified from the homepage's published pricing tables instead. Industry LinkedIn DM benchmarks (10-15% reply) are attributed generically and are not a StoneHaven or Cleverly-specific figure. FAQ questions were researched via web search against real query patterns for "cleverly reviews", "cleverly pricing", "cleverly alternatives", "is cleverly worth it" and "linkedin lead generation agency", July 2026, and phrased as buyers type them; third-party review-platform ratings surfaced in that research are excluded from this page as fact. Limitations: Cleverly's own case-study and lead-volume claims are not independently characterized or verified by this page. Last updated: July 2026.
Written by Sabo Nagy, Founder & CEO of StoneHaven. Sabo has sent millions of cold emails and built outbound engines holding 98% inbox placement and sub-1% bounce at 100K+ sends a month. Author page - X
Further reading: Email vs cold calling vs LinkedIn: the 100K-per-channel study in full breaks down the methodology behind the table above. For a wider field of providers, see Best Cold Email Agencies 2026. For teams comparing a LinkedIn-and-calling-led model against a broader appointment-setting shop, see Belkins Alternative.
