Exactly. Neither have we. So when we set about comparing our CRM to others we wanted to take a different approach.
The comparison we’ve put together is based on whether it’s possible (and how much it costs) to do in Apollo what you can do in Close.
For some of you, Apollo will be the better option. What we’re trying to demonstrate is when Close is a better fit than our competitor.
Apollo and Close are common comparisons for small businesses who need a new CRM, but the two products are designed to service drastically different types of businesses. It’s not an even comparison between Apollo and Close as they are actually serving two separate functions in your sales workflow.
Apollo is a great tool for identifying and sourcing contacts, plus doing initial outreach. It’s a close competitor to ZoomInfo.
After the initial outreach, however, Apollo isn’t built for ongoing contact management or customer engagement. Close, on the other hand, is a true CRM: built for ongoing customer management and full, start-to-finish lifecycle sales.
Comparing Close to Apollo is comparing apples to oranges in many ways––even though the two platforms have similar features. It would be more accurate to think of Apollo as a good first step in finding new prospects, then syncing those contacts into Close to manage the rest of your pipeline. Apollo and Close can complement each other in many ways for lead generation and cold outreach, depending on what level of time and spend you’re willing to invest.
Apollo is a great prospecting tool, but it is not a full CRM with extended contact and customer management features or automation.
There are also some key sales functions that, even with a third-party app, you just cannot perform using Apollo (such as call coaching, VoIP, and power dialing). With Close, they’re all built-in.