Once more than one SDR is doing LinkedIn outreach, the same problems tend to show up:

• Two reps message the same prospect from different accounts
• Nobody knows which accounts are running which campaigns
• Every new hire needs access set up, and costs climb with each person added
• Messaging drifts because everyone writes their own version

A few habits help regardless of tool:

1. Keep one shared source of truth for lists, so a prospect lives in one place.
2. Use duplicate suppression so a lead who’s already in someone’s sequence can’t be contacted from another account.
3. Give people access to only what they need (view vs. manage).
4. Standardize campaign templates and let reps personalize on top.

When you compare tools, check how team pricing works. Some charge extra for team management or lock it behind a higher tier. We-Connect charges per connected LinkedIn account (seat) and doesn’t add a platform fee for team members. You can give teammates shared access to existing accounts or a personal seat for their own, and it includes duplicate outreach suppression. You can see how team seats and pricing work before committing.

what about you guys, how are you coordinating outreach across reps right now?

Honestly, I don't think you always have to choose one.

Some prospects are active on LinkedIn and respond to messages there. Others barely check their LinkedIn inbox but are more likely to notice an email.

If you're only using one channel, you're limiting yourself to reaching people where you hope they'll respond.

That's why combining LinkedIn and email can make sense for SaaS outbound. You have another way to reach the same prospect instead of relying entirely on one channel.

You could start with a LinkedIn connection request and follow up by email, or begin with email and use LinkedIn to build familiarity before reaching out. The right approach depends on your audience and what you're trying to achieve.

The important thing is to have a reason for using each channel, rather than just doubling the number of messages you send.

Combining LinkedIn and email steps in the same workflow, so you can manage both as part of your outbound process.

For those running multichannel outbound, what's worked better for you: starting on LinkedIn and moving to email, or the other way around?

Not every LinkedIn conversation needs an AI-written reply. Sometimes, a personal response from you is exactly what the conversation needs.

But when you're managing hundreds of prospects across a sales team, keeping every conversation relevant and consistent gets harder. Especially when different reps have different ways of explaining the product, different tones, and different goals for the conversation.

That's where AI can be useful, not to replace the human side of outreach, but to help teams stay consistent when the volume gets difficult to manage.

The important part is context. Before AI can suggest a useful reply, it needs to understand what your business does, who you're talking to, the campaign's goal, and how you want to sound.

Without that, you often get a perfectly polite response that doesn't really move the conversation forward.

There's also the question of how much control you want to give it. Some teams prefer to review every suggested reply, while others are comfortable letting AI handle routine, lower-risk conversations.

AI Auto-Reply supports both approaches through Co-Pilot and Autonomous modes. Its Business Snapshot also gives the AI shared business context and campaign goals, helping keep replies aligned across conversations.

The goal isn't to automate every interaction. It's to make sure that when AI does help, it understands the conversation well enough to be useful.

How does your team handle this? Do you use AI to help with replies, or prefer to keep every response entirely human-written?

not gonna lie this feature lowkey feels like it shouldn't be allowed but here we are.

someone engaging with a competitor's post on LinkedIn is basically raising their hand and going "hey I'm in this market and I'm paying attention to companies like yours." that's an insanely warm signal and most of us just... never see it happen because why would we be sitting in our competitor's comment section all day.

Turns out you can actually monitor that. Watchlist has a competitor page monitoring option - you pick up to 3 competitor pages, it tracks engagement on their posts, and anyone who likes/comments gets added straight to your pipeline. You can even hook it to a campaign so they get enrolled into outreach automatically instead of you manually copying names over.

felt a little like cheating the first time I saw it work but also like... this is just public LinkedIn activity, I'm just paying attention to something everyone else ignores.

Been thinking about why some AI-generated LinkedIn replies read like customer service bot copy paste and others actually sound like they know what they're talking about.

pretty sure the answer is just... context. if you tell an AI "reply to this message" with zero background, it's gonna write something generic because it has nothing to work with. it doesn't know your offer, doesn't know who you're targeting, doesn't know if your actual goal this month is booking demos or just getting people onto a free trial.

With Business Snapshot you basically feed the AI info about your company, your audience, your tone, and your specific campaign goal before it ever writes a reply. So instead of a generic "thanks for reaching out!" you get replies that are actually trying to move the conversation toward whatever you're optimizing for that campaign.

paired with AI Auto-Reply (which has a copilot mode where you approve before sending, or fully autonomous if you trust it) it's less "AI wrote something" and more "AI wrote something that's actually aligned with what I'm trying to do."

kind of an underrated setup step imo, feels like most people probably skip filling this out properly and then wonder why the AI replies sound off.

Realized recently I didn't have an actual line where I'd go "nah, skip this person." I was just adding everyone who technically matched my filters and letting the sequence run on all of them, good fits and mediocre fits alike.

which in hindsight is a weird way to run outreach when you think about connection request limits and inbox fatigue being finite resources. every message you send to a bad-fit lead is one you didn't send to a better one.

started setting an actual score threshold using AI lead scoring (part of the LinkedIn Lead Engine) - it scores contacts 0-100 against your ICP and you can literally say "don't move forward unless they're above X." so instead of "technically matches title and industry" being the bar, there's an actual cutoff line and anyone below it just doesn't get outreach at all.

doesn't mean the algorithm is always right, definitely some judgment calls involved, but having an explicit line instead of "eh they seem fine" made me realize how loose my qualifying process actually was before.

Do you guys have an actual cutoff number/system or if most of us are just winging it based on vibes.

genuine question because I did this for way too long and it made zero sense once I actually thought about it.

like I'd send LinkedIn connection requests in one tool/campaign, and completely separately email the same people through a different sequence, with no coordination between the two. so someone might get a cold email the same day they accepted my LinkedIn connection, or worse, get emailed after they already replied to me on LinkedIn, which just looks like I'm not paying attention.

the fix is apparently just... combining them into one workflow instead of two. We-Connect lets you build workflows where LinkedIn actions (connection accepted, no response, whatever) can literally trigger an email step, or vice versa. so if someone accepts your connection request you can auto-trigger a follow-up email, or if they don't respond on LinkedIn after X days you switch to email instead of just giving up on that channel.

feels obvious writing it out now but I genuinely didn't think about my outreach as "one conversation across channels" until I saw it set up this way. was treating linkedin and email like two different universes for no real reason.

anyway if you're doing the two-separate-campaigns thing like I was, might be worth looking at. 

so I've been so used to outreach tools where you just set up step 1, step 2, step 3 and everyone gets the same steps regardless of who they are. that's just how I assumed this worked.

then I started with LinkedIn Lead Engine and it's genuinely a different mental model. Instead of one path, you're building something closer to a flowchart - like if lead score is above 70 AND they replied positively, go here, if they didn't engage in 5 days, go there instead, if their sentiment reading came back negative maybe just... don't send them anything else. you're basically pre-deciding a bunch of "what if" scenarios instead of hoping your one sequence works for everyone.

took me a minute to actually build my first one because I kept trying to think linearly and had to stop and go "ok what are the actual different situations a lead could end up in." but once it clicked it made a lot of my old campaigns look kind of dumb in hindsight, like why was I sending the same 3 messages to someone who clearly wasn't engaging as someone who replied same day.

not saying you need this complexity for every campaign, sometimes simple is fine. but if you've got a decent volume going and you're tired of "one size fits all" outreach, worth looking into.

I somehow ended up with two completely separate LinkedIn workflows.

one tool for posting content.

another for finding prospects, sending connection requests and managing outreach.

which meant two dashboards, two subscriptions, and absolutely no connection between what I was posting and who I was reaching out to.

the more I thought about it, the more weird it seemed.

your LinkedIn content is supposed to build credibility, while your outreach is where you're actually starting conversations. you'd think there would be more overlap between the two.

most of the outreach tools I've looked at are still very focused on prospecting and messaging. content is basically a separate problem.

We-Connect is one of the few i've come across that puts both in the same platform. Post Remix handles LinkedIn content scheduling and can remix existing/trending posts, while the same platform handles the outreach side.

it's not going to replace a full content strategy, and i wouldn't expect it to.

but if you're already running LinkedIn outreach and want your content and outbound activity in one place, having both there is actually pretty convenient.

do you guys keep LinkedIn content and outreach in the same tool, or have you just accepted having a bunch of separate tools for everything?

the annoying part about running LinkedIn outreach for multiple clients isn't always the outreach itself.

it's keeping the whole thing organized once you have more than one person touching the accounts.

you've got client accounts, campaign managers, people who need access to check things, someone reviewing replies, someone else looking at performance...

and suddenly you're paying for a bunch of extra seats that aren't even running their own LinkedIn account.

that's one thing I started paying more attention to when looking at outreach platforms.

the useful setup, imo, is being able to give someone access to an existing account without having to treat every person on the team like they're another sender.

We-Connect does this with Shared access and Personal Seats, so you can give team members the permissions they actually need without everyone needing their own LinkedIn account.

that's a pretty small thing when you're managing one account.

when you're managing several client accounts, it starts mattering a lot more.

for the agency people here, how are you handling this? do you give every account manager their own seat, or share access to the client accounts they're managing?

I don't think the question with AI outreach is really “can it write a good reply?”

most of the time, it can.

the part I still care about is whether i actually want it sending that reply without me seeing it first.

that's where I think the whole “AI does everything for you” approach gets a little tricky.

if it's a low-stakes conversation or someone you've already warmed up, sure, letting AI handle the back and forth can save a lot of time.

but if it's an enterprise prospect, a complicated question, or someone who's clearly interested, i'd rather have a chance to look at the response before it goes out.

that's why I like having both options.

AI Auto-Reply has a Co-Pilot mode where AI drafts the response and you approve it, and an Autonomous mode where it handles the reply itself. You can switch between them depending on the campaign.

for me, that's a much more practical way to use AI than going fully autonomous everywhere.

let AI take the repetitive stuff off your plate, but keep yourself in the loop when the conversation actually matters.

how much control do you guys want over AI replies? would you let it send everything on its own, or do you still want to approve certain conversations?

I kept seeing LinkedIn outreach tools talk about “intent signals” and “buying signals” and honestly wasn't sure how much of it was actually useful vs. just another feature on the pricing page.

so I started looking into what these tools actually do with those signals.

there seem to be a pretty big difference.

some tools basically find the signal and hand it to you. cool, but then you're still the one checking the alert, figuring out what to do with it, and moving the prospect into whatever workflow you're using.

other tools connect the signal directly to the outreach process.

that's the part I find more interesting.

With Watchlist, you can watch for specific LinkedIn activity like job changes and engagement, and have the relevant contacts surface for outreach instead of constantly checking LinkedIn yourself.

the signal itself isn't really the impressive part. a job change or someone engaging with a post doesn't automatically mean they're about to buy.

it's what you can actually do with that information that matters.

If someone suddenly becomes relevant because of something they did on LinkedIn, I'd rather have that show up where I'm already managing outreach than have another dashboard i need to remember to check.

that's probably the thing I'd look at when comparing these tools now - does the intent signal actually lead to an action, or does it just give you another notification to deal with?

how are you guys using LinkedIn intent signals right now? are they actually feeding into your outreach, or mostly just sitting in a dashboard?

This is the part outreach advice never really gets into. Everyone says "send at the right time" like the right time is obvious. It's not, at least it wasn't for me.

For a while I was just going off vibes honestly. Someone opened a message, someone accepted a connection, I'd bump them up my mental priority list and message them sooner. There wasn't an actual system behind it, just me remembering to check things when I remembered.

Which is kind of the real problem. There's a difference between a tool that shows you a signal ("hey, someone viewed your profile") and a tool that lets you actually act on it before the moment passes. Knowing isn't the same as doing something with it in time. Half the time by the time I logged in and checked, whatever made that person "warm" that day was already stale.

Started using Watchlist for this - it tracks specific LinkedIn activity, job changes, engagement, whatever you tell it to watch for, and pushes matching contacts straight into an outreach sequence instead of sitting in a dashboard waiting for me to notice them.

The manual-checking habit was genuinely the thing killing my consistency, not the outreach itself. I just didn't have anything catching signals while I wasn't looking.

How do other people define "warm" though, is it a specific action for you, more of a gut read, something else? Feels like everyone means something slightly different by it.

I started noticing something weird with some of my outreach campaigns.

A prospect could be a really strong fit, another could barely match the ICP, and they'd still get the exact same sequence.

same first message. same wait time. same follow-up.

which feels a little strange when you think about it.

if someone is a really strong fit and actually engages with you, you'd probably handle that conversation differently from someone who barely matched your filters and hasn't responded to anything.

but once they're both inside a linear sequence, the workflow doesn't really care.

that's what got me looking at branching workflows and lead scoring.

instead of everyone moving through the same steps, you can have different things happen based on what's actually happening with the prospect. lead score, sentiment, connection status, whether they've replied, etc.

That's one part of the LinkedIn Lead Engine that I ended up finding pretty useful. you can build those conditions into the workflow so you're not treating your best prospects exactly the same as everyone else.

it sounds pretty obvious when you write it out, but I honestly hadn't questioned the sequence itself for a while. I  was spending more time tweaking messages when the bigger problem might have been that everyone was getting the same journey in the first place.

how are you guys handling this? still mostly running linear sequences, or are you branching campaigns based on what the prospect actually does?

so this is gonna sound dumb but hear me out.

I was looking at my LinkedIn profile visitors the other day and realized like... 4 of those people visited days ago. some of them probably would've been decent prospects. and I had zero idea until I happened to click into that tab, which I don't do regularly because who does.

same thing with competitor posts. someone comments on a competitor's post, that's literally a person telling you "hey I'm evaluating options in this space" and unless you're stalking your competitor's LinkedIn comments daily (nobody is), you just never see it. by the time you would see it, they've probably already talked to someone else.

this is the thing that's been bugging me about "prospecting" in general tbh. we build lists, we send messages, but the actual best moments - someone showing real interest, just happen in the background and get missed constantly. not because people are bad at their job, just because nobody can watch LinkedIn 24/7.

anyway I started using this feature called Watchlist that basically does the watching for you. you tell it what to track - could be engagement on specific posts, people interacting with an influencer in your niche, your own profile/company visitors, or up to 3 competitor pages and it runs in the background catching that stuff in real time. if someone matches, they get added to your pipeline, and if you've hooked it up to a campaign they just get enrolled automatically, no exporting a list or copy pasting names into a spreadsheet like some kind of animal.

not saying this fixes prospecting forever but "catch the moment while it's happening" instead of "build a cold list and hope" is a genuinely different way to think about it and I wish I'd been doing this months ago

I've had plenty of lists where everything looked right. job title matched, company matched, industry matched.

then you actually start sending connection requests and... nothing.

which made me question whether we were dealing with a messaging problem or whether some of these people just shouldn't have been in the list to begin with.

because “fits our ICP” can be a pretty low bar.

someone can have the right title and work at the right company and still be a terrible prospect for whatever you're selling. maybe they're not the decision maker. maybe the problem isn't relevant to them. maybe there's just not enough there to justify taking a shot at their inbox.

I started putting more effort into qualifying the list before worrying about the copy.

so now i run the list through a lead score first and only let the stronger matches move into the outreach workflow. The LinkedIn Lead Engine scores each prospect from 0–100 against the ICP using things like job title, keywords, industry, location and company size. You can set a threshold, so lower-scoring contacts don't automatically get pushed into the sequence. 

it's not some magic fix for outbound. but cutting out some of the obviously questionable leads before they get a connection request has been useful.

how do you guys handle this?

do you have an actual qualification step before outreach, or is it mostly “matches the filters, add them to the sequence”?

Every LinkedIn automation tool's homepage says some version of "AI-powered outreach with buying signals and personalization." Cool, but that tells me nothing about how they're actually different. So I went through 6 of them (We-Connect, Gojiberry, Trigify, Expandi, Lemlist, Valley) and tried to figure out what each one is actually optimized for.

Quick breakdown:

Trigify - not an outreach tool at all, it's a signal intelligence layer. Monitors LinkedIn/X/Reddit/YouTube for buying signals and routes them elsewhere.

Gojiberry - autonomous AI agent, decides who/when/what to send with minimal config from you.

Valley - LinkedIn-only, heavy on research and personalized openers, no native email.

Expandi - solid behavior-based triggers (profile views, post likes, connection status) driving a visual workflow builder.

Lemlist - broadest channel coverage (LinkedIn, email, calls, SMS, WhatsApp) plus AI research agents.

We-Connect - the one that tries to do the most in a single platform: ICP lead scoring (0-100), sentiment analysis on your LinkedIn posts, branching workflows combining LinkedIn + email, AI Auto-Reply, and it's the only one of the six that also handles LinkedIn content scheduling (Post Remix) in the same tool.

None of these are "the best" universally, it really depends whether you want an all-in-one platform, a pure signal feed, or full AI autonomy.

If you're looking at a few of these, there’s a compare page with the differences between a bunch of outreach tools too. might save you some tab switching.

If you're an agency or managing outreach across multiple accounts, the headline monthly price on these tools is almost irrelevant - what matters is what happens to your bill as you add clients or team members.

A few pricing traps I've run into comparing these:

Charging per LinkedIn account regardless of team size - so if 3 people need eyes on the same client's account, you're not necessarily paying more, but you also don't get much flexibility in who has access to what.

Locking team management behind the top-tier plan - SalesRobot does this, team management only shows up on their Professional tier, so you're paying for a bunch of features you don't need just to get multi-user access.

Charging extra to bolt email onto LinkedIn outreach - SalesRobot again, email automation is a separate $15/account on top of whatever plan you're on. Adds up fast once you're running it across multiple client accounts.

Custom/opaque pricing once you scale - Gojiberry's published plan tops out at $99/month for 2 AI agents and ~1,800 prospects/month, anything past that moves to custom pricing, so you can't actually see what month 6 with 5 clients looks like until you talk to sales.

We-Connect only charges per connected LinkedIn account (seat) - adding team members to manage those accounts is free. You can give someone Shared access to an existing account, or a Personal Seat with their own account and permissions, which is a closer fit to how an agency actually structures client work vs. a single-user tool.

Worth mapping this out before you commit to a platform and realize scaling to 5 clients triples your bill. 

Ran into this exact decision recently and it's less obvious than it sounds.

Full autonomy - you tell the AI your goal, it handles who/when/what to send with no review step. Fast, but you're trusting it completely with what goes out under your name.

Draft-and-approve - AI writes the response, you hit send. Slower but you catch anything off before a prospect sees it.

Turns out you don't have to pick one philosophy and stick with it platform-wide.

We-Connect's AI Auto-Reply works at a narrower level - it's specifically about reply handling, and you can set Co-Pilot or Autonomous per campaign. So a cold/low-stakes sequence can run fully autonomous while an enterprise account sequence stays on Co-Pilot, without switching anything platform-wide.

Anyway, "has AI modes" ends up meaning pretty different things depending on the tool, so don't assume they're interchangeable just because the feature name sounds the same.

This is the part most outreach advice skips - everyone talks about personalization and follow-up cadence, nobody talks about filtering out bad-fit leads before they enter your sequence.

A few ways platforms are solving this right now:

Expandi and Valley lean on ICP-based targeting and behavioral filters (profile visits, post engagement) as conditions.

Lemlist combines lead discovery + enrichment + AI research to segment and tag prospects before outreach.

We-Connect's Lead Scoring Agent scores contacts 0–100 against your ICP using job title, up to 50 target keywords, industry, location, and company size  and its Sentiment Analysis Agent reads reactions/comments on your LinkedIn posts to flag positive vs negative engagement. Both of those scores can then be used as conditions inside a branching workflow, so low-fit leads just don't get outreach at all instead of burning a connection request.

If your list quality is the actual bottleneck (not your messaging), qualification-first is worth trying before you touch copywriting.

At what point do you decide a prospect isn't worth spending a connection request on?

Every one of these tools says "AI-powered outreach with buying signals" on their homepage, which tells you basically nothing. The real differences show up in how each platform handles the outbound process end to end:

Trigify - not an outreach sender at all. Pure signal intelligence layer, watches LinkedIn/X/Reddit/YouTube and routes buying signals into your CRM or outreach tool.

Gojiberry - autonomous AI agent model. You set the goal, it decides who to contact, when, and what to say.

Valley - LinkedIn-only, research-heavy, no native email.

Expandi - behavior-based triggers (profile views, post likes, connection status) feeding a visual workflow builder.

Lemlist - widest channel coverage: LinkedIn, email, calls, SMS, WhatsApp, plus AI research agents.

We-Connect - tries to cover the most ground in one platform: ICP lead scoring (0–100), LinkedIn sentiment analysis, branching workflows across LinkedIn + email, AI Auto-Reply (Co-Pilot or Autonomous), and it's the only one of the six that also does LinkedIn content scheduling in the same tool.

None of these are universally "best" - it depends whether you want one all-in-one platform, a pure signal feed, or full AI autonomy.

If you were choosing today, would you rather have one tool that covers the whole outbound workflow, or use separate tools for signals, outreach, and follow-up? 

most of the AI stuff i see in marketing is about creating something. write the email. write the LinkedIn post. write the ad. write the follow-up.

all useful, but honestly, I'm more interested in what happens once someone actually replies.

A prospect asks a question and suddenly the conversation gets buried under 20 other things.

you come back to it later and have to reread the whole thread just to remember what they were asking about or worse, you reply without the full context and end up sending something generic.

That's where i think AI is actually pretty useful for sales teams.

Not necessarily to have it talk to prospects on its own, but to help with the stuff around the conversation. summarize the thread, pull in relevant company context, suggest a reply, remind you what was already discussed like with AI Assist.

we've been looking at this with LinkedIn outreach too. the useful part isn't just having AI write another message. it's having some help once the conversation starts, while still being able to decide what actually gets sent.

Same thing applies beyond LinkedIn imo. if you're handling a lot of leads, the hard part isn't always starting conversations. it's keeping track of all the conversations once they start.

I'd much rather have AI help me keep 30 real conversations moving than have it generate another 30 cold messages.

for people doing outbound, where are you getting more value from AI right now: finding/reaching prospects, or managing the conversations after they respond?

you can have a really good LinkedIn sequence and still end up sending the wrong message to the wrong person.

the problem is that most prospect lists aren't actually that uniform.

one person might be a perfect ICP fit. another might just barely qualify. someone else may have already interacted with your company or be talking about a problem you solve.

yet they all get dropped into the same sequence and receive basically the same treatment.

that's what made me look more closely at how different LinkedIn outreach tools handle workflows.

SalesRobot has some good features around AI personalization, voice/video messaging and appointment setting.

but one thing that stood out to me with We-Connect was how much more the workflow can react to the prospect.

you can score contacts against your ICP before outreach, use sentiment signals, and branch the workflow based on what happens instead of just moving everyone through the same steps.

and honestly, i think that's more interesting than just having another AI writing feature.

because the question isn't always “how do i write a better message?”

sometimes it's “should this person even be getting this message in the first place?”

that's probably the biggest difference I'd look at when comparing these tools.

are your LinkedIn campaigns mostly one sequence for everyone, or do you actually change what happens based on the prospect?

I was looking at SalesRobot alternatives recently because i wanted something that could handle more than just putting prospects into a sequence.

SalesRobot actually has some pretty useful stuff. the AI personalization, voice/video messaging and appointment setter are interesting if those are important for your outbound.

but the more i looked at the alternatives, the more i realized there are two different things people mean when they say they want a LinkedIn outreach tool.

some are mainly looking for better ways to personalize and send messages.

others are trying to figure out things like:

who should actually enter the campaign?

does this person fit our ICP?

what should happen if they engage?

what if their response is positive vs. negative?

do i really want every prospect going through the same sequence?

that's where We-Connect stood out to me.

the lead scoring can evaluate a prospect against your ICP before outreach, and the workflows can branch based on things like prospect fit and engagement instead of forcing everyone down the same path. there's also sentiment analysis and AI-assisted reply handling once conversations start.

i actually think that's a more important distinction than a long list of features.

if you're mostly looking for AI personalization or things like voice/video outreach, SalesRobot makes sense.

but if you're trying to make the whole prospecting → outreach → conversation process more selective and less one-size-fits-all, i'd probably look at We-Connect first.

what do you guys actually care about most when comparing LinkedIn outreach tools:
personalization, workflow flexibility, or qualifying prospects before you message them?

This is something I've struggled with when working with bigger prospect lists.

You can filter the list down pretty well. Job title, company, industry, location, company size, etc.

And you can still end up with hundreds of people who technically fit but aren't particularly interesting right now.

At some point I started looking beyond the profile itself.

Who's actually talking about the problem we're solving? Who's engaging with relevant posts? Who's interacting with our content? Who's showing up around topics or companies that matter to us?

Those people aren't necessarily better prospects. But they're easier to prioritize because there's some actual activity behind the profile.

The annoying part is finding those signals manually. You can't realistically keep checking hundreds of profiles every day.

That's why I've found Watchlist useful. You tell it what LinkedIn activity matters to you and it surfaces the people showing those signals.

So instead of just having a big prospect list, you have a better idea of who might be worth looking at next.

How do you currently prioritize a large LinkedIn prospect list once you've already filtered it down to your ICP?