TL;DR
- HeyReach is the first choice here for LinkedIn-focused agencies needing client workspaces, sender allocation and a shared reply operation. Ten Growth senders cost $590 monthly at the current volume rate.
- Expandi is the strongest alternative when selected-account access, company grouping and custom permissions are central. Its ten-sender Business reference is $990 monthly; Agency scope is custom priced.
- Lemlist is a strong choice when each client needs an independent multichannel team with separate campaigns, contacts and billing. Ten Multichannel sender users have a $1,090 monthly base; guest administrators are distinct from paid sending users.
- La Growth Machine Pro fits agency-managed LinkedIn/email programmes that benefit from multiple identities, custom workflows and a multichannel inbox. Ten identities cost €1,200 monthly. Multiple identities do not by themselves establish a restricted client portal.
- Dripify Advanced fits centralized team supervision. Ten Advanced users cost $990 monthly. Its team owner/manager roles are useful, but they should not be described as an interchangeable ten-client portal.
The ten-client operating model
An agency needs more than the ability to connect ten LinkedIn accounts. It needs to know which client owns each profile, which operator may run its campaigns, who answers replies and what happens when that client leaves. A shared campaign list can be convenient internally while being unsuitable for a client login.
Use ten clients with one approved LinkedIn sender each. Two agency operators manage setup, replies and weekly reporting. The client sender remains the identity represented in the outreach; an operator login is a separate access role. Each client has its own audience, messaging, suppression records and reporting line. This is the common scenario for the comparison below, not a proposed shared account or a live product test.
The decision also depends on whether clients log in. An agency can manage a programme and provide reports without giving clients direct tool access. If direct access is part of the service, workspace visibility and permissions become decisive. Current official capabilities and pricing were assessed on 30 September 2026. Our HeyReach alternatives comparison concentrates on replacing an existing stack; this guide concentrates on a ten-client operating structure.
Agency structure and base costs compared
| Platform | Structure for ten clients | Reply and reporting model | Ten-sender monthly base | Annual basis where established |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HeyReach Growth | Ten client workspaces; allocate one sender to each; invite members only to relevant workspaces | LinkedIn Unibox and campaign stats within the workspace; API for central reporting | $590 at ten-sender volume rate | $5,640/year at $47/sender monthly equivalent |
| Expandi | Client company/account groups with selected sharing; custom role scope on the qualifying Agency offer | Campaign and step statistics; account/company ownership and external events | $990 Business reference; Agency custom | $9,480/year Business reference; Agency separately priced |
| La Growth Machine Pro | Ten paid identities with separated client campaigns/audiences under agency operation | Multichannel inbox and API campaign/conversation data | €1,200 | €12,000/year |
| Dripify Advanced | Ten Advanced sender users; multi-team organization and owner/manager supervision | Team and campaign analytics with role-based oversight | $990 | $9,480/year |
| Lemlist Multichannel | Ten separate client teams, each subscribed for its sender; operator guest access | Team-specific campaigns, contacts, inbox and API reporting | $1,090 | Current pricing displays $87/user monthly annual equivalent; separate annual team subscriptions |
These are supported sender bases, not fabricated complete agency invoices. Extra paid managers, enrichment, email infrastructure, LinkedIn subscriptions, tax and premium permission entitlements may add costs. Lemlist's five sending addresses per Multichannel user are email addresses for the same person, not five unrelated LinkedIn sender profiles. HeyReach pricing, Expandi pricing, LGM pricing, Dripify pricing, Lemlist pricing.
The five platforms
1. HeyReach
HeyReach has the clearest LinkedIn-first structure for this scenario. Create one workspace per client and assign its sender seat there. The workspace guide describes sender allocation and client invitations, with a normal limit of 30 workspaces. Ten clients fit that published structure without assuming that one large shared list isolates them. Workspace setup.
Member access can be limited to selected workspaces and functions. The important boundary is that permissions are screen-level: members granted inbox access see conversations throughout that workspace. Admins have wider access across existing and future workspaces. A client who should only see their programme belongs as a member in their own workspace, rather than as a global admin or a member of a workspace containing the whole portfolio. Role permissions.
The Unibox brings sender conversations together within that operating boundary. Campaign and sender information help the operator answer from the right profile. Current API operations support campaign statistics, conversation retrieval and messaging, making a separate reporting dashboard or approved-reply workflow feasible. Email remains a connected-tool operation rather than a native channel silently included in the LinkedIn subscription. Unibox, API reference.
Best fit: LinkedIn-focused agencies that want consistent client workspaces and shared agency operators. Less suitable: a service built mainly around one integrated LinkedIn/email sequence editor.
Verdict: first choice for the defined LinkedIn-first ten-client structure. Its lower volume base is useful, but correct workspace allocation is the stronger reason to buy.
2. Expandi
Expandi distinguishes the overall workspace from groups of sender accounts associated with a company. Its agency academy explains company grouping and duplicate avoidance within that group. In this example, each client's sender belongs to its own company/account grouping, keeping campaign ownership clear as clients are added. Agency structure.
Its workspace product describes selected-account sharing, predefined and custom roles, permissions and ownership transfer. Invited collaborators are distinct from paid sender accounts. These controls fit agencies with multiple operators who should manage different parts of the portfolio. Qualifying custom permissions and agency capabilities use the Agency plan's custom pricing; the ten Business seats provide a useful reference base, not proof that every enhanced control costs exactly $990. Workspace controls, Plan scope.
Expandi's Builder adds another reason to choose it: behaviour conditions, configurable paths and LinkedIn/email actions. Campaign and step statistics help explain why a client's audience took a particular path. Its outgoing reply events are useful for CRM handoffs, although the help describes periodic reply synchronization rather than guaranteed immediate delivery. Smart campaigns, Webhook timing.
Best fit: an agency needing account-specific access and more adaptable campaign paths. Less suitable: a simple LinkedIn service where custom permissions and branching add little practical value.
Verdict: the strongest permission-oriented alternative here. Use the supported Business reference for basic economics and retain Agency's custom-price basis for the enhanced operating model.
3. La Growth Machine
LGM Pro combines multiple paid identities with LinkedIn/email campaigns, custom workflows and a multichannel inbox. Each identity is billed separately; Pro supports as many identities as required and includes 25 team members, five sending emails per identity and up to six active campaigns. The ten sender identities therefore form a €1,200 monthly base, while included collaborators can serve the agency's operational roles. Current Pro scope.
The product's agency stack example uses one identity per client, alongside a client-specific CRM structure. That is a useful pattern for agency-managed work: keep each client's audience, campaigns, sender and CRM destination explicit. It does not by itself establish that a client member's login is restricted to that identity. This guide recommends LGM for internally managed multichannel programmes and reports, rather than claiming a specific restricted client portal from the identity count. Agency stack example.
The Pro API supports campaign data, conversations, messages and inbox webhooks for sent or received messages. That can feed a per-client reporting system and a central reply queue. Its API key grants full account access, so the key is an agency integration credential rather than a client-specific read-only credential. Native higher-tier CRM integration requirements remain separate from the fact that Pro has an API. API scope.
Best fit: an agency delivering coordinated LinkedIn/email programmes with internal operators and external client reports. Less suitable: the buying brief specifically requires a demonstrated restricted client login or a narrowly scoped per-client API credential.
Verdict: choose Pro for its multichannel operational value. Keep identity organization and user visibility as separate concepts.
4. Dripify
Dripify Advanced adds multi-team management and management features to its campaign platform. Its roles distinguish Owner, Manager and User: the owner oversees the programme and billing, while managers supervise the relevant teams. The published guide says the owner needs Advanced to unlock team management; individual members retain their own plan subscriptions. Multi-team billing, Role model.
For a straightforward comparison, ten Advanced sending users cost $990 monthly or $9,480 annually. If the two agency operators also need separate paid Advanced users, the twelve-user base becomes $1,188 monthly. That makes operator licensing visible rather than pretending a team dashboard creates free management accounts. A mixed owner/member setup can cost less, but members only receive their own plan's features. Current plans.
Dripify's campaign sequences currently include LinkedIn and email on paid plans. Advanced adds lead tagging, step analytics and team-management scope; its API supports lead uploads, campaign data and team/member statistics. An agency can build consistent internal supervision and reports from that data. A team is still not interchangeable with a separately billed client workspace or a client-facing portal. Current API reference.
Best fit: a centrally supervised operation with named sender users and manageable team structures. Less suitable: a service that requires independent client workspaces and billing as its central product promise.
Verdict: a credible team-management option. Include separately paid operators when they need accounts, and choose it for supervision rather than an assumed portal capability.
5. Lemlist
Lemlist documents the most explicit independent-team model among the multichannel choices here. Each team is a separate workspace with its own campaigns, contacts, settings, seats and subscription. Its single-versus-multiple-team guide recommends multiple teams for strict client data and billing separation. Ten clients can therefore have ten teams rather than share one team whose users see all campaigns and lead data. Create a team, Single versus multiple teams.
LinkedIn automation requires Multichannel, priced at $109 per sending user monthly, with the current annual card displaying $87 monthly equivalent. The cheaper Email plan has unlimited users but excludes LinkedIn actions; it is not the qualifying agency plan for this article. Up to five sending emails belong to the same user/person. Ten unrelated client identities require ten corresponding paid sender users, not two users multiplied by five “senders”. Current pricing, Plan and identity rules.
Administrators who do not send can use free guest access; the help lists up to five guests on Email and Multichannel teams. That fits the two agency operators in this example without silently giving them sending identities. Custom roles require Enterprise. Separate teams also have separate duplicate-detection and unsubscribe lists, so a portfolio-wide suppression policy must be maintained outside that automatic team boundary. Seat and guest rules, Enterprise permissions.
The multichannel inbox and reporting API can support the operational and client-reporting jobs. Independent team subscriptions mean clearer client billing but more accounts to administer. Archiving a team organizes the interface; it is not a substitute for cancelling or changing the subscription when a client leaves. Reporting API, Team archiving.
Best fit: integrated multichannel programmes with explicit client data and billing separation. Less suitable: a buyer expecting one inexpensive shared seat to send for several unrelated clients or custom roles on the self-serve base.
Verdict: the best fit here for independent multichannel client teams. Its higher sender base pays for a different workflow and billing structure than a LinkedIn-only seat.
Reporting that remains meaningful across clients
Use the same client-level definitions across platforms: unique prospects enrolled, connection requests sent, connections accepted, conversations started, positive replies and qualified meetings. Keep the channel and reporting period attached to each number. A total reply count that mixes email and LinkedIn is not directly comparable to a LinkedIn-only campaign's reply count.
Consider a client with 200 unique prospects, 120 actual invitation attempts, 42 accepted connections and 18 conversations. The acceptance rate is 42/120, or 35% of sent invitations. The conversation rate against all enrolled prospects is 18/200, or 9%. Do not report 18/42 as a general campaign reply rate without explaining that different denominator. These are illustrative counts, not vendor benchmarks.
The agency ledger should map client → workspace/team/company → sender → campaign → CRM owner. That mapping lets reports combine data without mixing client audiences. Operators can also record whether a reply is positive or merely a request to stop, avoiding an apparent improvement built from more unwanted conversations.
On departure, preserve the agreed campaign/report output, open conversation ownership and client suppression list, then remove operator/client access as appropriate and deal with the paid subscription separately. A client offboarding process should not remove the other nine clients' sender assignments or reporting history. The LinkedIn GTM playbook connects those ownership rules to the day-to-day reply process.
Ten-client operating economics
Suppose each weekly client report takes 15 minutes to assemble manually. Ten clients across four reporting weeks consume 10 hours monthly, or $500 at $50/hour. If a consistent export/API workflow reduces that work to five minutes per client each week, it consumes 3.33 hours, costing $166.67. The assumed saving is $333.33 monthly before setup and middleware.
This calculation puts the platform premiums in context. Expandi's $990 Business reference is $400 above HeyReach's $590 base, requiring eight hours monthly of value before any Agency uplift. The reporting saving alone would not cover it. Lemlist's $1,090 base is $500 higher than HeyReach, requiring ten hours of value if every other cost were equal. But they are not: Lemlist may also replace an email sequencing subscription and reduce multichannel coordination. Count those savings only where the agency actually removes that other spend.
Dripify's ten-user Advanced base is also $400 higher than HeyReach. If the two separate paid Advanced operator accounts are needed, the $1,188 total is $598 higher, requiring 11.96 hours at the assumed labour rate. Conversely, an agency that already has named operator subscriptions should use the incremental cost, not charge its whole existing stack again.
LGM's €1,200 monthly base should be assessed with euro-denominated replacement costs and labour or the agency's actual exchange rate. It is not converted using an invented constant. Its included collaborators and multichannel features can remove costs elsewhere, but client reports and seat costs remain different line items.
The buyer decision is therefore not “save $333 with any platform”. It is whether the chosen structure reduces reporting, campaign maintenance, inbox coordination and offboarding work enough to cover its full incremental cost. The worked reporting assumption makes one part of that decision concrete without claiming an observed automation result.
Which agency platform to choose
Choose HeyReach first for LinkedIn-focused delivery with separate client workspaces. Choose Expandi when its qualifying custom access model and campaign branches solve an additional operating need. Choose Lemlist Multichannel when independent client teams, subscriptions and coordinated channels are the defining requirements.
Choose LGM Pro for agency-managed multichannel delivery and API-connected reporting where clients receive reports rather than an assumed restricted login. Choose Dripify Advanced for centralized sender/team supervision with explicitly budgeted operator access.
All five can contribute to agency production. The recommendation follows the actual client boundary, sender ownership and channel model; a high account count or an “agency-friendly” label is insufficient on its own.
FAQ
Does a client need direct access to the outreach tool?
Only if the service includes it. Agency-managed campaigns with client reports can use a different permission structure from client logins. Decide that boundary before assigning shared access.
Can one Lemlist user cover five different client LinkedIn identities?
Its plan help describes five sending emails for the same person and a one-account/one-person rule. The ten-client example budgets ten paid sending users, not two shared people.
Are HeyReach inbox permissions per sender?
Its current guide describes screen-level permissions covering the selected workspace. Separate workspaces provide the practical client boundary in this guide.
Do separate Lemlist teams share suppression lists?
The multiple-team guide says duplicate detection and unsubscribe lists are separate. Maintain the agency's broader suppression rules in its central process when those rules apply across clients.
Is the cheapest sender base always the best agency platform?
No. The required channels, operator licences, client visibility and reporting work determine the useful cost. A higher base can be worthwhile when it removes another subscription or enough recurring labour.
