Lemlist made a name for itself in the cold email world by championing “creative personalization” and multichannel sequences. It allows users to embed personalized images or videos in emails, use custom variables (like {name} or {company}) extensively, and even coordinate email campaigns with LinkedIn touches and phone calls. Lemlist has also rolled out an AI assistant to help generate email sequences.
Here’s how PitchKraft compares to Lemlist in creating personalized outreach:
Lemlist’s approach to personalization often emphasizes eye-catching gimmicks and manual customization. For example, you can automatically insert a prospect’s name into an image (like a coffee cup with their name on it), or use an “icebreaker” variable which is essentially a custom intro line for each lead. Users can generate these icebreaker lines with Lemlist’s AI or write them themselves, and they can include dynamic content like the prospect’s logo, recent blog title, etc. This style of personalization is great for novelty – it shows you did something different for them – but it still often requires that you know what to personalize (and gather those data points).
PitchKraft focuses on contextual personalization. Instead of flashy images or one-liners, it ensures the substance of the email is personalized. PitchKraft will actually mention a relevant insight about the prospect’s business in the message, tying it into your pitch. It might reference the prospect company’s recent expansion, or a challenge in their industry, and align your value proposition to that. The result is a more meaningful personalization that reads like a thoughtful email, not an automated trick.
In short, Lemlist excels at adding personalized flair (and it certainly can improve replies by not being a bland template), but PitchKraft aims to personalize the core message on a per-prospect basis. For recipients, a PitchKraft email feels like a knowledgeable conversation starter, whereas a Lemlist email might feel like a clever mail-merge with fun elements. Depending on your strategy, one or the other might resonate more – but if your goal is to truly engage on business specifics, PitchKraft’s method digs deeper.
Lemlist introduced an “AI Sequence Generator” that can create entire multi-step campaigns once you provide some inputs about your target audience, your value prop, and a trigger event or offer. This is a useful way to get a baseline campaign quickly – you essentially get a sequence of emails (first email + follow-ups) written in a generic personalized tone. It’s important to note that Lemlist’s AI is working more at the campaign level than the individual level. It will generate a template that includes placeholders and maybe an icebreaker prompt, but it’s not doing deep research on each prospect by itself.
Lemlist assumes you have or will provide the specific data for each lead (e.g. their company’s “recent post” or website, which you might import into a custom field). In fact, Lemlist integrates with tools and encourages using their AI custom variables for things like “{Company_latest_news}” – but you typically must feed that information in, possibly via another service or manual entry.
PitchKraft, in contrast, operates at the individual email level from the get-go. Its AI asks for a generic example company during the blueprint creation just to understand context, but when you generate actual emails, it goes out and finds what’s needed for each actual prospect. If Prospect A just launched a new product, Prospect B won an award, and Prospect C has a hiring spree, PitchKraft’s emails can reference those different facts automatically, without you prepping those details in a sheet.
Lemlist’s AI might help you write a good formula for an icebreaker, but you’d still need to plug in specific content per prospect (or use yet another AI pass to fill those in). The bottom line: PitchKraft’s automation around research and writing can save a tremendous amount of time compared to Lemlist’s approach which, while assisted by AI, remains partially manual. Additionally, Lemlist’s strength is in orchestrating a sequence across multiple channels (email + LinkedIn + etc.), whereas PitchKraft’s strength is making the email itself as effective as possible. If you’re running a complex outbound cadence, you might use Lemlist for its campaign management but still consider using PitchKraft to generate the email copy that Lemlist sends. Many teams that require top-notch personalization do exactly this – they use PitchKraft to write the emails and then send them through Lemlist or another sequencer.
That said, if we compare outcomes: Lemlist will help you send a lot of semi-personalized touches across channels, and PitchKraft will help ensure that each email touch is maximally personalized and impactful. For fully personalized emails, PitchKraft remains the more specialized, and arguably more powerful, solution.
