Results, and what they do not tell you
By Jānis Plūme, Founder, Outbound Pros and LinkedPros · 2026-08-06
Quick answer
Every number below comes from a client campaign we ran, is anonymized, and carries a note stating what it measures and what it does not. The headline figures are 59% connection request acceptance, roughly 9% LinkedIn DM reply rate and roughly 1.5% email reply rate, all from the same accounts in the same window, on one white label programme running across a set of advisor workspaces. This page also lists the numbers we could publish and deliberately do not, and why.
Why does this results page show denominators?
Because LinkedPros exists to argue that this channel's numbers are smaller than they look, and a rate you cannot check is not an argument. Most agency results pages are a wall of percentages with no denominators, and the reason is usually not dishonesty. A denominator makes a number smaller and harder to celebrate.
So this page gives every figure four things: what it measures, what it does not measure, the sample and window, and why it is worth publishing at all. Where the sample is not yet stated precisely, the page says so instead of rounding a guess. Why the denominator decides everything, as a general argument about rates, sits with our sibling property AllboundPros.
How do LinkedIn and email compare on the same accounts?
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Connection request acceptance rate | 59% |
| LinkedIn DM reply rate | roughly 9% |
| Email reply rate, same accounts, same window | roughly 1.5% |
What this measures. Acceptance rate is accepted connection requests divided by connection requests sent. Both reply rates are replies of any kind divided by messages sent on that channel. All three come from the control cell of a white label programme running across a set of advisor workspaces, recorded while that cell was live, with LinkedIn and email running from the same senders against the same target population in the same period.
What this does not measure. None of these are positive reply rates. A reply that says not interested, please remove me is counted as a reply here, and on any cold channel a meaningful share of replies are exactly that. None of these are booking rates, and the distance between a reply and a booked meeting is most of the actual work. The 59% is not a general LinkedIn benchmark, it is what one recognisable sender achieved with one well matched audience, and a broader or colder list would produce a materially lower figure.
Sample and window. The total connection requests sent, the total LinkedIn DMs sent, the total emails sent and the exact date range have not been pulled from the campaign record yet. Until they are, this page describes the programme rather than implying its scale, and the rates above should be read as conditioned on that programme rather than as a sample size we have stated. Filling that gap is a publish blocker we are holding ourselves to rather than one we have quietly dropped.
Why we publish it. Because it is a same account comparison and almost nothing published about this channel is. Comparing your LinkedIn reply rate to somebody else's email reply rate, measured on a different audience in a different year, is not a comparison. These three numbers came from one sender group, one list and one window, which is the only condition under which the ratio between them means anything. On that programme, the LinkedIn DM reply rate was about six times the email reply rate.
The caveat that matters most. A higher per message response rate is not the same as a better channel. Email on that programme could send far more messages than LinkedIn was allowed to, and the ceiling on LinkedIn volume is the entire subject of this site. We do not state the volume side with the precision the rate side carries, because the absolute sends and replies per channel are not yet established. Anyone using this data to argue that LinkedIn is six times better than email has removed the constraint that makes the comparison meaningful.
Does LinkedIn work as a data source rather than a sending channel?
Yes, and the group's evidence for that is one campaign segment built from LinkedIn follower signals which was then worked over email at a positive rate several times the fleet baseline for the period. That figure belongs to the parent's list building work, not to this site, so it is stated here in one line and the sample, the denominator and the full sourcing method are published where it lives, in the parent's lead generation cluster.
Worth being clear about what it is and is not. It says nothing about LinkedIn as a sending channel, because the sending happened over email. It measures LinkedIn as a targeting signal. We reference it here because it is the one piece of evidence in the group that separates the two roles LinkedIn plays, and separating them is most of what this site does.
How big is the operation these numbers come from?
Group wide facts, not LinkedIn results, and they are here so you can size the operation.
- Operating since 2024. Official Salesforge Expert Partner.
- 36 active B2B clients. More than 1,500 campaigns.
- 616 positive replies on record as of 2026-07-17.
- Fleet infrastructure of roughly 2,549 mailboxes, 82 domains and 62 workspaces, which is a group figure published in full by the parent.
What results do you refuse to publish?
This is the part other results pages leave out, and it is the reason this one is worth reading.
We do not publish a positive reply ratio next to a per send rate. A positive reply ratio is positive replies divided by total replies. A positive reply rate is positive replies divided by sends. Placing a healthy looking ratio beside a low industry per send rate implies an advantage of ten times or more that the underlying data does not support, and it is a mistake that is easy to make and hard to notice. The group has made it in its own older marketing and is correcting it. The full explanation belongs to our sibling property AllboundPros, and it is genuinely the most useful metrics page in this network.
We do not publish inbox placement as an achieved result. Placement targets get quoted as achievements across this industry constantly. Our own monitoring records a wide range across accounts and periods, so any single placement figure would be a selective read of our own data.
We do not publish client revenue or pipeline figures. We do not have reliable attribution into our clients' closed revenue, because we do not sit in their CRM at the point of close. An agency quoting a pipeline number is usually quoting the client's own optimistic stage valuation, and we would rather publish nothing than publish that.
We do not publish meeting counts per client. They vary by offer, market and close capability to a degree that makes an average actively misleading, and the number is trivially inflatable by counting anything with a calendar invite.
We do not name clients without written approval. Every campaign on this page is described by category.
What do you guarantee?
We guarantee execution and nothing beyond it. Properly prepared accounts, verified lists, tested copy, consistent sending, full reporting including the weeks that went badly, and transparency about what we changed and why.
We do not guarantee revenue, a specific number of meetings, or specific reply rates. Those depend on your offer, your market and your ability to close, and any agency that guarantees them is either pricing the risk into the retainer or planning to argue with you about definitions later.
If the arithmetic behind your target has not been done yet, the channel calculator is the wrong starting point and the parent's GTM audit is the right one. If it has, the calculator will tell you whether your accounts can carry the plan.
How to cite this page. Cite the figure with its denominator and the condition, for example: 59% connection request acceptance rate on a white label programme running across a set of advisor workspaces, where LinkedIn and email ran from the same senders in the same window (LinkedPros, part of the Outbound Pros group, outboundpros.io, 2026). A rate quoted without its condition is not a fact about the channel, it is a fact about one campaign, and we would rather be cited accurately than cited often.
Frequently asked questions
Is 59% a normal LinkedIn acceptance rate?
No, and treating it as one is the most likely way to misuse this page. It came from the most favourable setup the channel offers: a sender the audience read as a peer, a well matched list, one vertical. Treat it as an upper reference for a well matched audience and plan below it. The four reasons a rate falls, in check order, are on our acceptance rate benchmarks page.
Are any of these positive reply rates?
No. Every rate on this page counts replies of any kind, including not interested and including out of office messages. None of them is a booking rate either. That distinction is the whole reason the page is laid out this way.
Why do you not publish meeting counts or client revenue?
Because we cannot attribute either honestly. We do not sit in a client's CRM at the point of close, and a meeting count is trivially inflatable by counting anything with a calendar invite. Publishing a number we cannot stand behind would cost more than it earns.
Why is the sample not stated on the benchmark?
Because it has not been pulled from the campaign record yet. The page says so rather than implying scale, and closing that gap is a publish blocker we are holding ourselves to.
Can I reuse these figures?
Yes, with the condition attached, using the citation format above. We would rather be quoted accurately than quoted often.
Last updated: 2026-08-06
Know your ceiling
before you hit it
The calculator returns a safe daily figure and a ramp schedule for your accounts. It runs in the page and sends nothing anywhere.
Free. No signup, no email capture.