What is this worth to your team?
Put your own numbers in. Nothing here is our data dressed up as yours — the defaults are published industry benchmarks, and every formula is written out below the result so you can check it or argue with it.
The part that isn't a forecast
—
hours a year your team would spend doing this research by hand, at 20 minutes an email. Front of Mind does it and leaves a draft; reviewing one takes about two minutes.
— hours given back, worth — in seller time.
If the reply rate improves
| Per year | Conservative6% reply rate | Expected8% reply rate |
|---|---|---|
| Extra replies | — | — |
| Extra meetings | — | — |
| Extra pipeline | — | — |
| Extra revenue | — | — |
Against the number you'd have to defend
—
return on — a year, counting revenue and recovered seller time in the conservative case. Payback in —.
Every number above, written out.
A calculator you can't check is a brochure. Here is the whole model, including where it is likely to be wrong.
The formulas
emails/year = sellers × emails per week × 46 working weeksresearch hours = emails/year × research minutes ÷ 60hours given back = research hours − (emails/year × 2 min ÷ 60)extra replies = emails/year × (new reply rate − current)extra meetings = extra replies × reply-to-meeting rateextra pipeline = extra meetings × deal sizeextra revenue = extra pipeline × meeting-to-win rate
Where the benchmarks come from
Apollo's 2026 guidance for broad B2B cold email: under 3% points to a targeting or deliverability problem, 3–6% is normal, 6–8% reflects strong execution, and above 8% is exceptional — which Apollo attributes to tight ICP segmentation, buying signals, or the sender already being familiar to the buyer.
Those three things are what Front of Mind does, which is why the conservative case here is 6% and the expected case is 8%, rather than anything higher. We have seen better than 8% on dormant relationships in live use. We have deliberately not built that into the model.
The reply-to-meeting default is 15% for the same reason. Apollo's research finds only about 14% of cold-email replies are genuinely positive — the rest are a no, a redirect, or an unsubscribe. A model that turns 40% of all replies into meetings is counting rejections as pipeline.
Source: Apollo, “What is a good reply rate for cold outreach in 2026”.
What we have rounded against ourselves
The 46 working weeks ignores that outreach clusters before planning windows. Review time is counted at two minutes an email and never at zero. Pipeline is shown unweighted and separately from revenue, so nothing is double-counted. And recovered seller time only appears in the return calculation, not in the revenue line.
Where this could be wrong
Reply rate is not free money: a reply still has to be worked. If your reply-to-meeting or meeting-to-win rates are optimistic, everything downstream inherits that. And the research-time figure assumes you would otherwise do the research — most teams don't, which is the real reason reply rates sit at 3%. Read that line as the cost of matching this output by hand, not as time you are spending today.
See what we'd do for your team.
The calculator uses industry averages. Your own data tells us what we'd really do.
We read every application ourselves. Privacy notice.
Thank you. We'll be in touch within a couple of working days.
A few more answers help us judge fit faster.