Dripify

You connect one LinkedIn account per seat, build a campaign as a sequence of steps, set daily action limits and delays between them, then let it run and review replies, analytics, and exports. It runs in the cloud with local-IP positioning and timing meant to look human.

That positioning is marketing, not a shield. The language around daily quotas and human behavior describes how Dripify tries to stay under the radar, and LinkedIn's policy still treats automation as a violation.

You carry the account risk, not Dripify.

When you have a narrow ICP and a message that already works by hand, Dripify takes the repetitive part off your plate. It chases the follow-ups, spaces them out, and keeps a clean record of who responded so reps go after the warm ones.

Webhooks and Zapier are documented, and HubSpot syncing shows up on Pro and above, so replies can flow into your CRM instead of dying in the LinkedIn inbox.

Account safety is the whole game. One account per seat plus daily quotas cap your real throughput, so this scales by adding accounts and adding risk. Get internal approval before you switch it on, keep quotas conservative, and watch for LinkedIn policy changes.

Automation is not the strategy. It only pays when a human handles the positive, negative, and compliance-sensitive replies, and when email-finder and enrichment data gets validated before you send.

Practitioner write-ups, including one that analyzed 400 user complaints, cluster on exactly these points: limits, reliability, and account risk.

Basic is $39 per month annual ($59 monthly), Pro $59 ($79), Advanced $79 ($99), and Enterprise custom. Plans differ on features, quotas, integrations, and email-finder allowances, so the tier you need is set by which integrations and limits you require.

The cost that hides: one seat covers one LinkedIn account, so scaling volume means buying more seats, and each new seat is another account exposed to policy risk.