Best Voice AI for Outbound Sales (2026)

Both tools support native outbound campaigns, but Retell AI has meaningful cost and scale advantages for high-volume outbound sales. Retell AI charges no monthly platform fee ($0/mo vs Voiceflow's $60/mo) and includes 20 concurrent calls on the base plan vs Voiceflow's 5. Retell AI telephony runs $0.01/min vs Voiceflow's $0.05/min, reducing per-call costs significantly at volume. Retell AI also offers native SIP trunking and warm transfer, both critical for sales call centers. The margin is narrow rather than clear, however, because Voiceflow offers full white-label support and some Voiceflow cost estimates are not vendor-confirmed.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns and warm transfer, but Retell AI adds a no-code agent builder (Vocode lacks one per b235d200) and partial white-label support versus none for Vocode, which matter for sales teams and agencies. Retell AI also bundles native integrations with HubSpot, Go High Level, Make, and Zapier-adjacent tools that are critical for outbound CRM workflows. Vocode's base price is $0.00/min, though that figure is only an estimate, while Retell AI at $0.07/min pairs its higher rate with a proven no-code builder and richer native integrations, giving it a concrete operational edge.

For outbound sales campaigns, Retell AI wins on multiple dimensions. Its base concurrency is 20 calls vs Ultravox's 5 calls, critical for high-volume dialing. Real production costs range 0.085-0.415 vs Ultravox's flat 0.055, but Retell includes BYO LLM support, a no-code agent builder, a simulation and testing suite, and partial white-label capability, none of which Ultravox offers. Retell also has broader native integrations including Go High Level and HubSpot, which are standard in sales stacks. Ultravox lacks barge-in handling and a testing suite, both important for live sales call quality.

For outbound sales campaigns, cost and accessibility matter greatly. Retell AI has a $0/mo platform fee versus Thoughtly's $500/mo, making it far cheaper to launch. Retell also allows self-serve signup while Thoughtly does not, reducing friction. Retell's base concurrency is 20 calls versus Thoughtly's 10, which is critical for campaign volume. Both support native outbound campaigns and warm transfer. The combination of no platform fee, self-serve access, and double the base concurrency decisively favors Retell AI.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns, warm transfer, and no-code builders. Retell AI has a higher base cost at $0.07/min versus Phonely's $0.05/min, but Retell's real production cost floor of $0.085/min is lower than Phonely's estimated $0.20/min floor, meaning Retell can be meaningfully cheaper at scale. Retell also offers bring-your-own LLM flexibility and partial white-label support, which is useful for outbound sales agencies running multiple client campaigns, while Phonely has no white-label capability.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns, SIP trunking, and no-code builders. However, Retell AI adds enterprise-relevant advantages: SOC 2 Type II certification, GDPR tooling, consent and recording compliance, warm transfer to human, a built-in knowledge base, a simulation and testing suite, and native Go High Level plus HubSpot integrations. These features matter in outbound sales where compliance, CRM connectivity, and agent quality assurance are critical. Retell's real cost tops at $0.415 per minute versus Millis at up to $0.66 per minute, and Retell includes 20 concurrent calls on the base plan. Millis base price of $0.02 per minute is lower, but the broader compliance and integration stack tips outbound sales toward Retell.

For outbound sales campaigns, Retell AI has native outbound campaign support while LiveKit Agents does not (facts 90744e3a vs 6ad921b6). Retell also includes a no-code agent builder, making campaign setup faster, along with warm transfer to human, DTMF/IVR navigation, a simulation and testing suite, and consent and recording compliance tooling, all critical for sales call centers. Retell starts with 20 concurrent calls versus LiveKit's 5. LiveKit's lower cost is noted, but the missing native campaign feature is a decisive gap.

Retell AI has native outbound campaigns built in, which directly matches this use case. It also supports 20 concurrent calls on the base plan versus Dasha's 1 call (facts 11a9ed04 vs 7dac60ee), making it far more practical for real campaign volumes. Additional outbound-relevant features like warm transfer, a no-code builder, and integrations with Go High Level and HubSpot further reinforce the advantage. Dasha has no documented outbound campaign feature, and its 1-call base concurrency is a severe bottleneck for any call-center workload.

For high-volume outbound sales campaigns, cost and concurrency matter most. Retell AI has a base price of $0.07/min versus Vapi's $0.05/min, but Retell's real production cost tops out at $0.415/min versus Vapi's $0.17/min, making Retell potentially more expensive at scale. However, Retell includes 20 concurrent calls on the base plan versus Vapi's 10, and extra lines cost $8/mo versus $10/mo, giving Retell a clear capacity advantage. Retell also holds SOC2 Type II certification and requires no annual contract, while Vapi requires an annual commitment for best pricing. Both support native outbound campaigns and warm transfer. The higher base concurrency and lower expansion cost tip the decision toward Retell for call-center volume.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns, but Bland AI has several concrete advantages for outbound sales. Its base concurrency is 10 calls versus Voiceflow's 5, meaning twice the parallel capacity at launch. Bland AI charges $0.00 per min for telephony and $0.11 to $0.14 total per min with no platform fee, while Voiceflow adds $0.05 per min telephony plus an estimated $60 per month platform fee, making Bland AI materially cheaper at scale. Bland AI also includes native SIP trunking and warm transfer to human, both critical for sales handoffs. Voiceflow's white-label support is a counterpoint for agencies, keeping this advantage narrow rather than clear.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns and warm transfer, but Bland AI adds a no-code agent builder (Vocode has none per b235d200), making it far easier to spin up and iterate on sales scripts without engineering effort. Bland AI also includes a built-in 99.9% uptime SLA on all plans and self-serve signup, lowering time-to-launch. Vocode's $0/min base cost is attractive but is an estimate, while Bland AI's all-in cost of 0.11-0.14 USD/min is clearer and more predictable for budgeting outbound campaigns at scale.

For outbound sales campaigns, Bland AI offers a no-code agent builder (Ultravox lacks one, per fact 9049ca31) and barge-in interruption handling (Ultravox does not support this, per ae0eaf39), both critical for natural sales conversations. Bland AI also provides a 99.9% uptime SLA on all plans, versus an enterprise-only SLA for Ultravox (facts 030f8723 and 5f60e330). Ultravox is cheaper at $0.05/min versus $0.14/min, and both support native outbound campaigns, so cost partially offsets Bland AI's advantages, keeping the margin narrow.

Both tools support outbound campaigns and warm transfers, but Bland AI wins on cost and accessibility for outbound sales. Bland AI carries a $0/mo platform fee versus Thoughtly's $500/mo, making it far more accessible for scaling call volume. Its base price of $0.14/min comes with no separate platform overhead, while Thoughtly's $500/mo floor adds significant fixed cost. Bland AI also offers self-serve signup versus Thoughtly's lack of one, enabling faster campaign launches. Thoughtly's 200+ native integrations are a meaningful counterpoint, but the cost and friction gap tilts the decision toward Bland AI.

For outbound sales campaigns, Bland AI wins on multiple decisive dimensions. It has native outbound campaigns while Ringly.io explicitly does not. Bland AI costs $0.14/min versus Ringly.io at $0.29/min, and charges $0/mo platform fee versus Ringly.io's $349/mo. Bland AI also supports 10 concurrent calls on its base plan versus Ringly.io's 1 line, and includes barge-in handling plus DTMF/IVR navigation, both absent in Ringly.io. These combined advantages make Bland AI clearly superior for outbound sales.

For high-volume outbound sales campaigns, real cost per minute is critical. Bland AI's estimated production cost of 0.11 to 0.14 USD/min compares favorably to Phonely's 0.35 USD/min, making Bland significantly cheaper at scale. Bland also includes telephony at 0.00 USD/min versus Phonely's 0.02 USD/min, and offers a 10-call concurrency base with a 99.9% uptime SLA across all plans, which matters for campaign reliability. Both platforms support native outbound campaigns, warm transfer, and no-code builders, so the cost and infrastructure advantages tip the decision toward Bland AI.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns, no-code builders, and self-serve signup. Bland AI edges ahead on enterprise readiness with SOC 2 Type II certification, a 99.9% uptime SLA on all plans, and a base concurrency of 10 calls at a predictable cost range of $0.11 to $0.14 per minute, compared to Millis AI's wide $0.06 to $0.66 per minute range. Bland AI's Y Combinator backing and GDPR tooling add credibility for larger sales teams. Millis AI's lower base price of $0.02 per minute is attractive, but its unpredictable real cost range and absence of SOC 2 evidence reduce confidence for enterprise outbound deployments.

Bland AI includes native outbound campaigns, warm transfer to human, and a no-code agent builder, all critical for sales workflows. LiveKit Agents explicitly lacks native outbound campaign support and does not include warm transfer or a no-code builder, meaning custom engineering is required to replicate that functionality. For an outbound sales and call-center use case, the absence of native campaign support in LiveKit Agents is a decisive gap.

Bland AI offers native outbound campaigns, warm transfer to human agents, a base concurrency of 10 calls versus Dasha's 1 call (ab3a0fe1 vs 7dac60ee), a no-code agent builder, and a built-in knowledge base. For outbound sales at volume, a starting concurrency of 10 is decisive compared to 1. Dasha's lower per-minute rate ($0.08 vs $0.14) is a consideration, but its lack of native campaign tooling and single-call base concurrency make it far less suited for outbound call-center operations.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns, but Vapi edges ahead on cost structure and infrastructure. Vapi carries a $0/mo platform fee versus Voiceflow's estimated $60/mo, lowering overhead for high-volume outbound. Vapi also includes 10 concurrent calls on the base tier versus Voiceflow's 5, directly impacting campaign throughput. Native SIP trunking and number provisioning further reduce friction for call-center deployments. Both offer BYO-LLM and no-code builders, so the advantage comes down to concurrency, cost, and telephony depth.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns and warm transfer to human agents. Vapi edges ahead on several factors relevant to outbound sales operations: it includes a no-code agent builder (Vocode does not, per fact b235d200), making it easier to spin up and iterate on campaign scripts without engineering. Vapi also offers partial white-label and sub-accounts versus none for Vocode, which is useful for agencies running multi-client outbound programs. Vapi's 10-call base concurrency, self-serve signup, and $50M Series B backing further reduce operational risk for production campaigns.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns, SIP trunking, and warm transfer. Vapi edges ahead for outbound sales because it offers a no-code agent builder while Ultravox does not, making campaign setup faster for non-developer teams. Vapi also supports bring-your-own LLM for model flexibility, and has a broader native integration list including GHL, Zapier, Make, and Twilio, which are commonly used in outbound sales stacks. Ultravox lacks barge-in handling, a notable gap for live sales calls. Vapi's higher base concurrency of 10 versus 5 calls (facts 3eb460c0, f004cce1) also favors call-center volume.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns, but Vapi charges $0 per month versus Thoughtly's $500 per month, making it far more accessible for cost-sensitive sales teams. Vapi also offers self-serve signup so teams can start immediately, while Thoughtly requires a sales process. Thoughtly lacks API-first capability, limiting programmatic campaign automation, whereas Vapi is fully API-first. Vapi's 600 ms latency and $50M Series B funding add further credibility. The margin is narrow because Thoughtly offers SOC 2 Type II compliance and 200+ native integrations including Salesforce, which matter for enterprise sales stacks.

Vapi has native outbound campaign support, while Ringly.io explicitly does not. Vapi also offers 10 concurrent calls on its base plan versus Ringly.io's 1 line, which is critical for outbound volume. Vapi's per-minute cost of $0.05 to $0.17 USD is substantially lower than Ringly.io's $0.19 to $0.35 per minute, reducing campaign costs at scale. Vapi also integrates with GHL, Zapier, Make, and Twilio, which are standard outbound sales stack tools, and supports DTMF and IVR navigation that Ringly.io lacks.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns, warm transfer, and no-code builders. Vapi's production cost range of 0.05 to 0.17 USD/min is materially lower than Phonely's estimated 0.20 to 0.35 USD/min, which matters at outbound call volume. Vapi also offers bring-your-own LLM for cost optimization, partial white-label for agency resellers, and a 600 ms median latency that aids live sales conversations. Phonely requires no annual contract, but Vapi's lower real cost ceiling and $50M Series B funding signal stronger infrastructure for high-volume outbound workloads.

Both tools support native outbound campaigns and no-code builders. Vapi edges ahead for outbound sales at scale through broader native integrations including GHL and Zapier, a built-in knowledge base, warm transfer to human, DTMF/IVR navigation, a simulation and testing suite, and credibility from a $50M Series B. Millis AI has a lower base price at $0.02/min versus $0.05/min, but Vapi's real production cost tops out at $0.17/min compared to Millis at $0.66/min, making Vapi more predictable at volume.

Vapi natively supports outbound campaigns while LiveKit Agents does not (facts 2ad82640 vs 6ad921b6). Vapi also includes a no-code agent builder that speeds up campaign setup without engineering overhead. Additional features such as warm transfer to human, DTMF/IVR navigation, a testing suite, and partial white-label support make Vapi well suited to outbound call-center operations. Because LiveKit Agents lacks native outbound campaign tooling, Vapi is the clear winner for this use case.

Vapi offers native outbound campaign support, 10 concurrent calls on the base plan versus Dasha's 1, and a lower base price of $0.05/min versus Dasha's $0.08/min. For outbound sales volume, concurrency is critical, and Vapi starts 10x higher. Vapi also includes native SIP trunking, warm transfer to human, and GHL/Zapier/Make integrations that are standard in sales workflows. Dasha's concurrency limit of 1 and higher per-minute cost make it clearly less suited for call-center scale campaigns.

Thoughtly includes native outbound campaigns, warm transfer to human agents, 200+ native integrations including HubSpot and Salesforce, a built-in knowledge base, and native SIP trunking. These are table-stakes features for outbound sales and call-center work. ElevenLabs Agents has no cited outbound campaign capability and no warm transfer fact. Thoughtly's $500 per month platform fee is a real cost, but its feature set for outbound sales is decisively stronger.

Voiceflow has native outbound campaigns support, which directly serves outbound sales and call-center use cases. ElevenLabs Agents has no corresponding fact indicating native outbound campaign capability. Voiceflow also includes a built-in knowledge base and white-label sub-accounts, both useful for sales campaign deployments. While ElevenLabs Agents offers a 75ms latency advantage, that alone does not offset the absence of outbound campaign tooling. Voiceflow is the clear fit for this use case.

Ringly.io explicitly lacks native outbound campaign support, whereas no such restriction is noted for ElevenLabs Agents. ElevenLabs Agents also charges $0.05/min with no platform fee, compared to Ringly.io at $0.29/min plus $349/mo, making it far more cost-effective at scale. ElevenLabs supports 70 languages versus 40, offering broader reach for outbound campaigns. Its 75ms latency and no-code builder further strengthen the case for rapid campaign deployment.

LiveKit Agents explicitly lacks native outbound campaign support, which is a core requirement for outbound sales and call-center work. ElevenLabs Agents has no such disqualifying limitation in the facts. ElevenLabs also supports 70 languages, useful for broad sales outreach, and offers a no-code agent builder that speeds campaign setup. LiveKit has lower base pricing at $0.01/min versus ElevenLabs at $0.05/min (facts 7e98590c, f38effd1), which partially offsets the difference, but the missing outbound campaign capability is a decisive functional gap for this use case.

For outbound sales campaigns at scale, per-minute cost and concurrency are critical. ElevenLabs Agents charges $0.05/min versus Dasha at $0.08/min, a 37.5% cost advantage at volume. Dasha also starts with only 1 concurrent call on its base plan, which is a serious bottleneck for outbound campaigns. ElevenLabs further offers a no-code builder for faster campaign setup, 70 languages for multi-market reach, and 75ms latency for natural conversations. The cost gap and concurrency limitation tip the balance toward ElevenLabs Agents.

For outbound sales campaigns, Millis AI offers native outbound campaign support and native SIP trunking, which are directly relevant features. ElevenLabs Agents has no cited outbound campaign capability. ElevenLabs does hold a significant latency advantage at 75 ms versus Millis at 600 ms, which matters for call quality. Millis also supports BYO LLM and BYO voice for cost control. The native outbound campaign and telephony infrastructure features tip the decision toward Millis, though the latency gap keeps this comparison narrow.

Phonely includes native outbound campaigns, warm transfer to human agents, a built-in knowledge base, DTMF/IVR navigation, and native number provisioning, all directly relevant to outbound sales call-center workflows. ElevenLabs Agents offers superior latency at 75ms and supports 70 languages versus Phonely's 50 (7340f19b vs 55d0ac30), but has no native outbound campaign feature. Phonely's end-to-end telephony stack, including SIP trunking, makes it the more complete solution for outbound sales campaigns specifically.

For outbound sales campaigns, Ultravox offers native outbound campaign support, warm transfer to human agents, a built-in knowledge base, native SIP trunking, and DTMF/IVR navigation. ElevenLabs Agents shows no comparable outbound campaign or warm transfer features in the facts. ElevenLabs does have advantages in latency at 75ms and language coverage at 70 languages versus 26 (fact 7340f19b vs 9b20a3df), but the direct outbound campaign tooling and human handoff capability in Ultravox are decisive for this use case.

Vocode has vendor-confirmed native outbound campaigns support, plus native SIP trunking and warm transfer to human, all critical for outbound sales call-center workflows. ElevenLabs Agents has no outbound campaigns feature in the fact set. Vocode also offers bring-your-own LLM and TTS flexibility, which is useful for campaign customization. The tradeoff is that Vocode lacks a no-code builder, but for outbound sales campaigns the functional telephony features matter more than ease of setup.

Dev platform, conversational AI. No won verdicts for this use case yet; it ranks on ties and near-misses.

Realtime infra + agents (OSS + cloud). No won verdicts for this use case yet; it ranks on ties and near-misses.

Ecommerce phone agents. No won verdicts for this use case yet; it ranks on ties and near-misses.