Aellysa
Aellysa positions itself as the first CRM built for the way sales representatives actually work, and the pitch is aimed at the rep rather than at RevOps or the VP. The company's founding story is that its team spent more time clicking than selling and ended up working for the CRM instead of the other way around. The product joins a visual pipeline to the execution layer teams use to move deals forward. MEDDPICC qualification is built in, covering metrics and economic buyer capture, contact mapping and a scored qualification summary.
An AI mail composer drafts messages inside a smart inbox and updates the pipeline in the same click, learning an individual seller's writing style so that drafts sound like them. Deal rescue and risk alerts flag opportunities that have gone quiet, and the platform watches for buying and risk signals including unusual account activity, buyer engagement patterns and competitive interference. Around that sit energy based task prioritization, website lead tracking, scheduling automation with automatic meeting logging, team metrics, and a gamification layer of points, levels, streaks, badges and leaderboards with leadership run incentive programs.
Three plans are published, Base, Pro and Enterprise, alongside a seat slider on the pricing page that produces an estimated monthly and annual cost, no long term contract, and a full refund inside fourteen days. The service runs on Microsoft Azure in the North Europe region. It is sold to business to business teams that need structured sales execution, and it positions itself against Salesforce on ease of use.
Capability Axes
Capability grades
17 of 17 axes rated · 5 graded A or B
The removal test leaves a complete and saleable product. Take the models away and what remains is a visual pipeline with drag and drop boards, account and contact management, MEDDPICC qualification scoring, energy based task prioritisation, meeting logging, website lead tracking, CSV and Excel import and export, team metrics and an entire gamification layer of points, levels, streaks, badges, leaderboards and incentive programmes. None of that requires a model.
What the models do supply is the mail composer, the smart updates, the deal scoring and the risk alerts, and those are assistive layers on a system of record rather than the reason the product exists. The vendor's own framing supports the reading, since the headline claim is that this is the first CRM built for how sellers actually work rather than a claim about intelligence.
Note for contrast with the rest of the category that the AI mail composer and deal scoring both appear in the entry tier rather than being gated upward, so this is not the packaging pattern seen elsewhere where the model is sold as an upgrade.
The vendor markets automatic outreach in plain terms, inviting the buyer to set up custom email workflows and let the platform handle the entire outreach automatically, and separately describes drafting an email and updating the record in a single click. Those are two different oversight postures sold on the same page and only one of them keeps a human in the loop.
Nothing published describes an approval step, a review queue, a confidence threshold, a withholding guardrail, an escalation path or a containment behaviour when a signal is wrong. The one oversight artefact located is advanced audit logging, and it is reserved for the top tier, so the record of what the system did on a seller's behalf is a purchased upgrade rather than a property of the product. The nudges and stale deal alerts are advisory and do reach the human, but advisory prompts are not an oversight model for the part of the product that sends.
AI is described functionally throughout and never technically. No model provider is named, no model family, no version, no inference location, no retention position for prompts or generated content, and no statement of what the system does when it is uncertain.
The strongest specific claim is behavioural rather than architectural, that the assistant learns a seller's communication style and adapts to sound just like them, which tells a buyer what the output will resemble but nothing about how it is produced. A feature called Supermemory sits in the top tier with no published explanation of what it retains, for how long, or across which boundary. For calibration, the newest and smallest vendors graded in this index have named their model provider outright, so this is a choice rather than a constraint of company stage.
Recorded as a stage fact rather than as concealment, in the same terms applied to other very young vendors here. There are no named customers, no logos, no case studies, no analyst coverage, no funding record and no located reviews on any major software review platform, although listings exist on more than one. The testimonials that do appear on the site are unattributed, so a reader cannot tell whether the quoted seller runs a two person team or a global one.
The single quantified claim is the headline promise to save five or more hours a week, published without a measurement basis, a sample or a period. One third party directory assigns a computed score of 47 out of 100 in its forecasting and lead scoring category, derived from material gathered around the web rather than from user reviews, so it corroborates nothing. Re verify once the vendor accumulates review platform history.
The product sends automated email sequences and tracks identified website visitors, which puts it squarely inside the direct marketing and electronic communications rules, and no regulation is named anywhere in the public material. There is no reference to CAN SPAM, to the GDPR grounds for unsolicited business email, to the ePrivacy rules that govern the tracking, to unsubscribe handling, to suppression lists or to the time within which an opt out is honoured.
The nearest thing to a position is a line in the pricing questions stating that the platform is designed for setups aligned to the GDPR, which is a gesture at a framework rather than a control the product enforces. That is a thin posture for a vendor whose infrastructure sits in the European Union and whose likely buyer is therefore in scope.
What is published is a single sentence, that the platform is designed for setups aligned to the GDPR, offered in the pricing questions alongside the hosting region. No privacy notice was located this pass, so there is no controller and processor split, no legal basis for any purpose, no retention schedule, no subject rights route, no data protection contact, no transfer mechanism and no sub processor list.
Recorded as observed rather than concluded, since this is a failure to locate documentation and not a finding that none exists. The site declines automated access, which is part of why retrieval failed here, and a terms document is published at aellysa.com/terms.html and was not read this pass. Re verify at aellysa.com for a privacy notice and read the terms document before this row is quoted.
The vendor does not sell a contact database and does not claim one, so the heaviest version of this question does not arise. What does arise is the signal layer. The product claims to spot buying signals and risk signals earlier than a person can, naming unusual account activity, buyer engagement patterns and competitive interference, and it tracks website leads. Competitive interference in particular cannot come from the customer's own records alone.
No source is named for any of it, no supplier is disclosed, and no licence or permitted use position is published. Prospecting is also marketed as a capability without a stated origin for the prospect data. Graded at the middle of the band because the volume of externally sourced personal data appears modest rather than because provenance is disclosed.
The exposure here is materially lower than in most of the surrounding roster and it is a property of the architecture rather than a policy. No automated action against a social network was located, no profile visiting, no connection requests, no automated commenting, no multi account rotation and no marketing that treats platform limits as an obstacle to be routed around.
Email runs through a connected mailbox and the named integrations are official ones, with Salesforce sync in the paid tiers and import wizards for Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive and Close. Website lead tracking runs on the customer's own property. Held off the top of the band because the mailbox connection method is nowhere documented, so a buyer cannot tell whether the vendor holds a revocable scoped token or a credential, and that distinction has decided this axis for other vendors here.
The product's own marketing raises the training question and nothing published answers it. The assistant is said to learn a seller's communication style and adapt to sound just like them, which means it is being fitted to that individual's mail. A top tier feature called Supermemory implies accumulated context of unstated scope and duration.
Between them those two claims put customer mail content, deal notes and buyer intelligence into a model pipeline, and there is no published statement on whether that content trains models, whether any learning is scoped to the single tenant, whether prompts or outputs are retained, or whether a sub processor sees the content.
Other vendors at a far earlier stage have answered exactly this in writing, one of them in a headed clause confining training to the individual customer's own data, so the answer is available to a company this size and has not been given.
Nothing in the product pretends to be a person. There is no agent persona, no synthetic voice, no manufactured location and no automated conversation conducted under a human name, which puts it clear of the sharpest exposures in this index. What it does manufacture is effort and voice.
The assistant learns an individual seller's writing style so that generated drafts sound like that specific named human, and automated workflows can then send them, so the recipient receives a message that carries the signature of personal attention it did not receive.
Article 50 of the EU AI Act is not addressed, which is worth noting for a vendor hosting in the European Union and selling into it, and the marking duty under that article rests principally on the provider of the system rather than on the customer using it.
The entry point is well handled and the exit into a wider stack is not. A guided import wizard maps fields automatically from Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive and Close, CSV and Excel import and export sit in the entry tier, and the vendor states migration assistance is included at no extra cost on every plan. Beyond that the surface thins.
Direct integration with Salesforce is reserved for the paid tiers, custom integrations and the API are gated to the top tier alone, no connector count or partner directory is published, no public developer documentation was located, and there is no marketplace listing, webhook description or agent facing endpoint. For a product whose whole argument is that it removes administrative friction, the absence of a generally available API is the notable gap, because integration is where that friction usually lives.
The vendor states plainly that the service runs on Microsoft Azure data centres in the North Europe region, which is a named single region published in an answer a prospective buyer will actually read rather than buried in a sub processor annex. A stated residency posture with no options in it beats silence, and that is the ground for the band. Two things hold it off the top.
There is no accompanying commitment that data does not leave the region, which is the sentence that has earned the highest grade on this axis elsewhere, and no residency choice is offered to the customer. More pointedly, the product's differentiator is generative, and nothing states where inference happens or whether prompt content crosses a border to reach a model provider, so the published region covers the database and leaves the part a European buyer would ask about unaddressed.
No certification is held. The vendor states it is preparing for SOC 2 and uses industry standard security controls, and that phrasing deserves a small amount of credit for candour, because saying a certification is in progress is more honest than asserting one without naming its type or period, which is the failure that has taken other vendors here to the same band from the opposite direction.
There is no trust centre, no report, no audit period, no auditor, no penetration test, no vulnerability disclosure policy and no enumerated control set. The specific controls that are visible appear as commercial gates rather than as security posture, with single sign on reserved for the middle tier and advanced audit logging for the top one, so the two capabilities a security reviewer asks about first are both upsells.
The buyer can budget this purchase without speaking to anyone, which is the test. Three plans are published and named, Base, Pro and Enterprise, each with its contents enumerated so the gates are visible in advance: the entry tier carries pipeline and deal management, account and contact management, the smart inbox and mail composer, deal scoring and import and export; the middle tier adds the management dashboard, smart updates, deal rescue and risk alerts, the workspace hub and single sign on; the top tier adds Supermemory, custom reports, advanced audit logging, custom integrations and the API, and a service level agreement.
The pricing page carries a slider that returns an estimated monthly and annual cost for a given team, which is a stronger disclosure form than a static table because it answers the buyer's own question. The commercial terms are published alongside it: no long term contract or lock in, upgrade and downgrade at any time, prorated on upgrade and effective next cycle on downgrade, a full refund inside fourteen days, and onboarding and migration assistance included on every plan at no extra cost.
One qualification belongs on the record. The site declines automated access and the figures are produced by the calculator, so the tier amounts were not read directly this pass and a third party directory records an entry point near thirty nine dollars. Re verify the numbers and check whether the top tier carries a figure or routes to a quote.
Export is a property of the cheapest plan rather than a purchased commodity. CSV and Excel import and export appear in the entry tier feature list with no metering, no credit cost and no volume ceiling published, which is the direct inverse of the credit metered export that has held other vendors down on this axis. The commercial terms reinforce it, with no long term contract or lock in and downgrade available at any time, so a customer is not held by the paper either.
What is missing is the second half of the question. Nothing published states what happens after termination: no retention period, no deletion timeline, no deletion confirmation artefact, no return mechanism and no stated post termination data rights. A terms document exists at aellysa.com/terms.html and was not read this pass, and it is the most likely place for those commitments, so re verify there before this row is quoted.
The product runs automated email sequences and no sending control is named anywhere. There is no warm up, no authentication guidance on SPF, DKIM or DMARC, no bounce or complaint threshold, no blocklist monitoring, no placement testing, no domain health reporting, no sending window or pacing description and no volume governance.
Nor is the sending architecture documented, so a buyer cannot tell whether messages leave their own mailbox and carry their own reputation or leave shared infrastructure. Recorded as observed rather than concluded, since this is a failure to locate published controls rather than evidence of poor delivery, and unlike the vendor that took the lowest grade on this axis here there is no public support material pointing at a delivery problem. Re verify if the vendor publishes deliverability documentation.
The positioning is coherent and consistent, which is more than several larger vendors here manage. The buyer is a business to business team that needs structured sales execution through MEDDPICC, playbooks and proposal stages, led by a revenue leader who wants visibility into risk and coverage, and typically a startup or smaller team that can run this as a light system of record and grow into a heavier process.
The vendor positions itself explicitly against Salesforce on ease of use and against the reporting first tools that tell a team what happened rather than what to do next, and a third party summary states just as plainly who it does not suit, namely teams wanting a basic contact list, pure outbound sequencing without pipeline context, or a document repository. Off the top of the band because no customer size distribution, industry mix or geographic coverage is published and there are no named customers against which to test the claim.
Pricing
What this vendor charges, what it commits to in writing, and where the bill can move. Figures the vendor publishes itself are labeled Vendor Published. Figures labeled Estimated come from other sources and the vendor has not confirmed them.
- ›The prices cannot be read by a machine at all. This company's site tells automated visitors not to read its pricing page, and mine obeyed. That is a deliberate setting, not a page that failed to load.
- ›So no AI assistant that respects those rules can ever tell you what this costs, no matter how capable it is. Everything below came from search snapshots of the company's own pages instead.
- ›Three plans are named, Base, Pro and Enterprise, and the company describes its pricing as simple and transparent. No figure survives in anything I could reach, and no outside guide has published one either.
- ›The terms that did survive are unusually fair. Upgrading charges only the difference for the rest of the period, downgrading takes effect next cycle, and there is a full refund within fourteen days with no forms and no phone call, cancellable from your account.
- ›On the data side it is more specific than most: hosted in North Europe, encrypted in transit and at rest, with single sign on, role based access and audit logs on the top plan.
How the price works
What you are charged for, and what makes the bill go up.
Not retrievable. The vendor's exclusion file disallows automated access to its site, so the pricing page cannot be read by any compliant automated reader. This is a deliberate configuration rather than a rendering failure or a transient error, and it was confirmed by a fetcher that read the exclusion file and reported the refusal.
What follows was recovered from search index snapshots of the vendor's own pages rather than from the site.
Three plans are named: Base, Pro and Enterprise. The vendor describes its own pricing as simple and transparent, covering the range from prospecting through deal execution. No figure, band, seat rate, minimum or contract length appears in any recovered fragment.
Billing mechanics are recovered and are specific. On upgrade, only the prorated price difference for the remainder of the billing period is charged. On downgrade, the new price takes effect from the following billing cycle. A full refund is available within the first fourteen days, with the vendor stating that no forms and no telephone call are required and that cancellation can be initiated from within the account, by replying to the purchase confirmation email, or through support.
Tier gating is partially recovered: direct synchronization with a named record system is stated as included on the two upper plans, while file based import from any major record system is available on all plans.
No third party estimate of this vendor's pricing was located to record in place of vendor figures, so none is recorded.
What the contract says about your data
What the vendor commits to in writing once your data is in the product.
Better than the pricing retrieval allowed, and all of it recovered from indexed vendor text rather than from the site itself. The vendor states compliance with the European regulation, that data is hosted in the North Europe region, and that data is encrypted both in transit and at rest. Naming a specific hosting region rather than a provider or a continent is more precise than most vendors in this index manage, and for a European buyer it is the single most useful sentence available.
The upper tier adds single sign on through a named identity provider or the customer's own, role based access control, and audit logging. Publishing which security capabilities are gated to which tier is a real disclosure, because in this category those three are frequently assumed to be included and frequently are not.
What was not established: a signable data processing agreement, an enumerated sub processor list, a named certification or attestation with its scope and assessor, and a retention period expressed as a duration. Those may well be published on surfaces I could not reach, and the retrieval limitation described in the notes applies here too.
The custody question is the ordinary one for a record system, with one addition worth naming. The product includes an assistant that drafts messages by learning an individual seller's writing style, which means it retains and models that person's historical correspondence. That is employee data used to build a personalized model rather than customer data, and its retention and portability sit outside what a standard processing agreement usually addresses. A buyer should ask what happens to a seller's learned writing model when that person leaves.
Getting started
What it costs and what is included before the product is running.
None indicated, and the recovered terms suggest a self serve product with assisted migration included rather than a services engagement.
Migration is addressed directly. The vendor states that contacts, companies, deals and activities import from named competing record systems either through file upload or supported integrations, that a guided wizard maps fields so owners, stages and custom fields land correctly, and that for complex setups or large historical datasets its own team assists. That assistance is described without a charge attached and alongside a statement that support helps at no extra cost. Typical migrations are described as completing within a few days, with customers often productive the same day.
The refund arrangement functions as the trial. A full refund is available within fourteen days with no forms and no telephone call required, cancellable from within the account or by replying to the purchase confirmation email. The vendor frames this explicitly as testing with real contacts, deals and processes rather than with sample data, which is a materially better evaluation than a feature limited trial for a record system.
No long term contract is indicated in any recovered material, and billing changes are prorated on upgrade.
What cannot be established is the price any of this attaches to, or whether the upper tier carries a seat minimum or annual commitment, since those would appear on the page that cannot be retrieved. Integration depth is tier gated, with direct synchronization to a named record system stated as available on the two upper plans and file import available on all.
What to watch for
Where this pricing can surprise a buyer who has not read it closely.
The first vendor in this index confirmed to block automated access to its pricing page, and it is the cleanest example of the problem this property exists to document.
The pricing page cannot be read by a machine, and not because it renders client side or because a fetch timed out. The vendor's exclusion file disallows automated retrieval outright. My own fetcher reported the refusal explicitly, which means it read the exclusion file and complied with it. That is a deliberate configuration rather than an accident of how the page is built.
The distinction is worth holding against the rest of this index. Apollo's prices were in structured data and recoverable. HubSpot's needed a renderer. ActiveCampaign's required a configurator input. I wrongly suspected Reply of blocking crawlers and disproved it. This vendor genuinely blocks them, and the consequence is absolute: no answer engine that respects exclusion files can read this vendor's prices, ever, regardless of capability.
What could be recovered came from search index snapshots of the vendor's own pages, which is a route that exists only because the page was crawled before or under different terms. Three plans are named, Base, Pro and Enterprise, and the vendor describes its own pricing as simple and transparent. No figure appears in any recovered fragment.
The commercial terms that were recovered are unusually buyer friendly and deserve recording. Upgrades charge only the prorated difference for the remainder of the billing period. Downgrades take effect from the next cycle rather than being refused. A full refund is available within fourteen days, and the vendor states explicitly that it requires no forms and no phone calls, with cancellation possible in the account, by replying to the purchase confirmation, or through support. Migration assistance for complex setups is stated to carry no extra cost. Each of those is a term that vendors elsewhere in this tranche either omit or make adverse.
So the picture is a vendor whose terms are among the most reasonable recorded here and whose prices are among the least reachable. The two are not in tension, they simply address different audiences: the terms are written for a buyer who has already arrived, and the exclusion file decides who arrives.
No dollar figure is recorded in the numeric field. The vendor publishes prices and I could not retrieve them, and no third party has published a figure either, so recording an estimate would mean inventing one.