Expandi is one of the few competitors we will not accuse of faking the AI. They open the prospect's profile before writing, they say so publicly, and the opener is genuinely generated. The question is where that generation stops.
At a glance
Entry price
Conflicting figures: ~$133 Basic on aggregators, 490€–1,480€/user/month per a French reseller. No self-serve pricing page found.
Pricing model
Per seat, sales-led
How the AI writes
No generative writing documented. Outreach described as multichannel campaign animation.
Positioning
All-in-one omnichannel acquisition platform with a bundled B2B contact database.
A generated opener, templated follow-ups
Expandi's AI message is capped at roughly 275 characters and metered by a daily credit allowance. It is an icebreaker. The follow-ups are template steps in a campaign, identical for everyone in it, and those are the messages that actually produce meetings, because almost nobody replies to the first one.
Spruce generates every message in the thread, each one written with the profile and the conversation so far in context. A prospect who half-replied gets a different second message than one who went silent.
What a Sales Navigator filter cannot tell you
Expandi asks you to qualify upstream: build a precise Sales Navigator search, and trust that everyone it returns is worth contacting. That works until the search returns 4,000 people and 1,200 of them changed jobs, work at agencies rather than the companies you want, or are individual contributors with a director's title.
Spruce scores each profile against your personas at import and drops the mismatches before a single invitation is spent.
Built around campaigns, with the usual consequences
Expandi is built around campaigns, so the same maintenance tax applies: a campaign per segment, a copy update per campaign, and a routing decision every time a prospect fits two profiles. Spruce has no campaign object at all.
Where Expandi is clearly ahead
Brand and maturity. They are known, they rank on their competitors' brand terms, the product has years of hardening behind it, and their safety limits are well tuned. They are also the reference for agencies running many accounts with tight IP hygiene.
Which to choose
If you want a known tool, if an AI opener is enough personalisation, and if your list is already good, Expandi. Spruce is for the case where you want qualification before sending and the whole sequence written per prospect.
Side by side
| Spruce | Expandi | |
|---|---|---|
| Connection requests included | 800 per month, on every plan. | No published cap. The limits are yours to configure, within what LinkedIn allows. |
| Qualification before the invitation | Every profile is scored against the personas you declared. Profiles that do not match are dropped before the invitation goes out. | No scoring step before the invitation. A search, a list or a CSV goes into the campaign and the campaign works through it. |
| Who writes the message | Each message is generated for that one prospect, from their profile. | Their AI generates a short opener from the profile. The rest of the message is the template you wrote. |
| Follow-ups | Also generated per prospect, inside the sequence you configured. | Template steps in the campaign, sent on the conditions and delays you set. |
| Campaigns to build and maintain | None. There is no campaign object in Spruce. | Yes. Campaigns and smart sequences are what you build, and what you keep up to date. |
| Sending behaviour | Paced over the working hours you define, and public holidays are skipped. | Cloud-based sending, with windows and limits you configure. |
| Several LinkedIn accounts | Through linked Spruce accounts. It is not many accounts run from one workspace. | One seat per LinkedIn account. Agency pricing starts at ten seats. |
| After the reply | Manual setting on Essentiel. From Professionnel upwards, AI setting carries the conversation through to the booked meeting, then you close. | Replies land in Expandi's inbox and the conversation is yours to run. |
| Track record and safety limits | A younger product. Pacing follows the working hours you define, and skips public holidays. | Expandi wins here. It has been on the market far longer, the brand is established, and its safety limits are tuned by years of use at scale. |
| Price | Essentiel 149€ per user per month, or 124€ per month billed annually (two months free). Professionnel 249€. Accompagnement 499€. | Business $99 per seat per month, or $79 a month billed annually ($948 a year). Agency from ten seats, on quote. |
Expandi figures are taken from their public pricing page. If you are reading this more than a quarter after publication, check them yourself.
Where they are strong
- Messages are genuinely generated. They open the prospect's profile before writing and say so publicly
- The brand is well known in the category
- Ranks on competitors' brand terms, Dripify included
Where they fall short
- The AI message is capped at roughly 275 characters and limited by a daily credit allowance, so what you get is an icebreaker rather than a sequence
- Only the opener is generated; the follow-ups are not
- Qualification happens upstream in the search filters, and never as a per-profile gate
- Structured around campaigns
Our verdict
Expandi does real generation, and credit where it is due. But it generates the first 275 characters of a campaign that is otherwise a template, and it never decides that a prospect is not worth contacting. Those are the two things Spruce was built to do.
Frequently asked
Expandi is cheaper per seat. What am I paying extra for?
For the two steps Expandi leaves to you: deciding who is worth an invitation, and writing the body of what they read. Spruce scores each profile against your personas before the invitation and generates each message, and each follow-up, from that person's profile.
Expandi at $79 to $99 a seat is a good price for a solid sender. If your team already has the targeting and the copy under control, that is the cheaper path and it stays cheaper.
Expandi lets me set my own limits. Is 800 a month not restrictive?
Expandi publishes no cap, so the number you send is whatever you configure. Spruce includes 800 connection requests a month on every plan, which is a stated figure rather than a setting.
Above both sits LinkedIn, which applies its own limits regardless of the tool. No tool raises that ceiling, so the practical difference is smaller than the two pricing pages suggest.
Expandi generates messages with AI as well. Is that not the same?
Expandi genuinely reads the profile and generates an opener, and it is a good one. What follows is the campaign you wrote, with the same follow-ups for everyone in it.
Spruce generates the whole thread, including the follow-ups, from the profile and from what has already been said. Most meetings come from the second or third message, which is exactly where the two products differ.
We are on Expandi. What does switching involve?
Nothing to export, because there is no campaign to recreate. You describe your personas, set your working hours, connect the LinkedIn account, and Spruce starts qualifying and writing.
Expect the first days to look quieter than an Expandi campaign, because profiles that do not match your personas are dropped rather than contacted.
When is Expandi still the better choice?
When you want a mature, proven sender with limits you control yourself. Expandi has been doing this longer than we have, its safety settings are well tuned, and for agencies running many accounts that track record counts for a lot.
If your requirement is fine control over volumes and timing rather than help with targeting and writing, Expandi is the better fit.
Ready to structure your prospecting?
Join 150+ teams running smarter outbound with Spruce.
Essential plan free for 14 days · Cancel anytime · No commitment