We tested every AI SDR for 30 days. Here's what actually worked.

The AI SDR pitch is irresistible: a tireless rep that prospects, writes, and follows up for $1,500/month — a tenth of the cost of a human BDR. We ran four of the leading platforms against the same ICP for 30 days.

How we tested

• Same ICP (Series A-B B2B SaaS, GTM leaders).
• Same offer.
• Same volume target: 500 contacts/week per platform.
• Tracked: deliverability, reply rate, meeting set rate, and reply quality.

The headlines

• Deliverability was the hardest problem, full stop. Three of four platforms tripped Google’s spam classifier within two weeks. Whoever wins this category will win on deliverability infrastructure, not on personalization quality.
• Personalization quality is converging fast. Across all four, first-line “personalization” was largely templated — “I saw {company} just raised X.” Real personalization (something an SDR would notice) was rare.
• The biggest delta wasn’t the platform — it was the offer. Even the best platform with a weak offer underperformed the worst platform with a strong one.

What we’d actually use

If you have a great offer and want hands-off: Artisan, with the caveat that you’re locked into their stack.

If you want maximum control and have a technical operator: Clay + your own sender. It’s not “an AI SDR” but it’s the highest-leverage configuration of AI in outbound right now.

If you want augmentation, not replacement: Rox. The augmentation pitch is right, even if execution is early.

What we’d avoid

Any platform that won’t let you see and edit the prompts. Any platform that won’t show you the raw email before it sends. Any platform with a 12-month minimum contract.