Loxo vs Juicebox: Pricing, Credits, Seat Caps and Agents Compared for 2026

These two reach the same shortlist because both promise a shorter route from an open role to a list of people worth contacting, and both publish enough numbers to be checked. That second part is rarer than it sounds. Most of this category publishes a price without an allowance or an allowance without a price, which makes cost per contact a marketing claim. Here it is division you can do yourself.

The structural difference is what each product is. Loxo is an applicant tracking system and recruiting CRM that added a sourcing database, so buying it means moving your system of record. Juicebox is a sourcing and outreach platform that connects to 41 applicant tracking systems and 21 CRMs, so buying it means adding a layer on top of what you already run. Almost every practical difference on this page follows from that one fact, including the pricing shapes.

The trap sits in the entry tiers. Loxo Core at $149 looks like the natural comparison to Juicebox Starter at $99, and it is not a comparison at all: Core has no sourcing database and no credits. Loxo Source, the 850M profile talent graph, begins on Professional at $199. Any article that puts $149 next to $99 is comparing an applicant tracking system to a sourcing tool and calling one of them cheaper.

Read this page in two halves. The first half is arithmetic you can verify against the two vendor pages, both linked at the bottom. The second half is procurement judgement: whether your credits are pooled or ring-fenced, what an agent costs when it is not included, and which questions to put in writing before either contract is signed.

A sourcing tool is only useful to the extent it turns a profile into a way to reach someone, so cost per revealed contact is a far better comparison than cost per seat. Both vendors publish what is needed to compute it, which is unusual: hireEZ publishes a price and no allowance, and LinkedIn publishes neither.

On annual billing, Loxo Professional is $199 for 2,500 credits, which is 7.96 cents per revealed contact. Juicebox Growth is $179 for 1,500, which is 11.9 cents. Juicebox Starter is $99 for 500, which is 19.8 cents. Month to month, Juicebox gets worse at 13.3 cents on Growth and 23.8 cents on Starter, while Loxo publishes annual billing only. Loxo Core does not appear in this list because it reveals nobody.

So Loxo Professional is the cheapest published cost per contact in this category, roughly a third of Juicebox Starter and about two thirds of Juicebox Growth. That holds even though a Loxo seat is the most expensive of the three, which is the same inversion Gem shows between its Essentials and Professional tiers: the cheap-looking seat is usually the expensive one per unit of work.

One caveat applies to both. Running searches is not the metered part on either platform. Juicebox states unlimited searches on every paid plan and Loxo meters credits rather than queries. The credit is spent turning a profile into a verified way to reach someone, which is the step that actually caps how many people you can put a message in front of. Budget against the credits, not against the searches.

Loxo includes 2,500 credits per seat per month and pools them across the team. Juicebox Growth includes 1,500 contact credits per seat and does not. Compared as raw numbers that is a 67 percent advantage to Loxo. Compared as usable capacity on a real desk it is usually much larger, and this is the most under-discussed difference between the two products.

The reason is that outbound is rarely spread evenly. In most small firms one person runs the searches and writes the sequences while the others work the pipeline, take the client calls and manage the interviews. Take a three person firm where one recruiter does 80 percent of the sourcing. On Loxo Professional that is $597 a month and a single 7,500 credit pool, and the heavy sourcer can draw all of it. On Juicebox Growth that is $537 a month and three ring-fenced 1,500 allowances, so the same person stops at 1,500 while roughly 3,000 credits expire unused on their colleagues accounts at the end of the month.

That is $60 a month for a five times higher working ceiling for the person actually doing the work. It reverses only if the sourcing really is split evenly, in which case the per-seat model wastes nothing and Juicebox is both cheaper and adequate. So the honest test is not which allowance is bigger. It is how concentrated your outbound is, and you already know the answer for your own team.

Loxo also publishes a route past the ceiling. Credit Boosts raise the allowance to 5,000 per user a month at 2x and 12,500 at 5x. Loxo publishes the allowances but not the prices, so a boosted cost per contact cannot be calculated from public information, and that is worth asking for in writing rather than assuming it scales at 7.96 cents.

Both vendors sell autonomous agents that shortlist and email without a person driving each step. They charge for them in completely different ways, and the gap is bigger than any other number on this page.

Loxo Professional includes the agentic workforce in the $199 seat: Full Agentic Mode, three Data Agents per record, Loxo AI Chat and the Agent Impact Center, on every seat, with no separate line. Juicebox sells agents at $199 per agent per month on top of a paid plan. One Juicebox Growth seat running one agent is therefore $378 a month against $199 for a Loxo Professional seat doing comparable work. That is a $179 monthly difference, or about $2,150 a year on a single desk.

The Juicebox add-on is not simply the worse deal though, and the reason is easy to miss. The Juicebox agent carries unlimited contact and email credits, so unlike everything else in this comparison its cost per contact falls the more you use it. Juicebox Starter plus one agent is $298 a month for uncapped reveals. Loxo Professional is fixed at 7.96 cents. Those two meet at $298 divided by 7.96 cents, which is about 3,744 revealed contacts a month. Below that threshold Loxo is cheaper per contact and cheaper in total. Above it the Juicebox bundle is cheaper and the gap grows with volume.

The practical read is that Loxo wins the agent line for the large majority of firms, because 3,700 reveals a month is a serious outbound operation and most two to five person desks are an order of magnitude below it. But if you are genuinely running that volume, the uncapped model is the cheaper one and the bundled model becomes the constraint. Count last month reveals before you decide which of those you are.

Strip out the money and this pair splits on one question: do you already run an applicant tracking system you intend to keep?

If you do, Juicebox is the structurally correct answer and the credit arithmetic is secondary. Loxo is an ATS and CRM first, so a large part of what you would pay for is software you have already implemented, trained people on and are not going to migrate off mid-year. Juicebox connects to 41 applicant tracking systems and 21 CRMs and is designed to sit on top of one. Paying $199 a seat for a second system of record you will not use is a worse outcome than paying 12 cents a contact instead of 8.

If you do not, the calculation reverses just as hard. Loxo Professional at $199 bundles applicant tracking, recruiting CRM, an 850M profile sourcing index, agents on every seat and 2,500 pooled credits into one line item. Buying an ATS separately and a sourcing tool separately costs more than $199 a seat in almost every combination, and it leaves you copying records between two products. For a new desk with no incumbent system, this is the strongest value on the page.

There is a middle case worth naming. If you run an ATS you actively dislike and have been meaning to replace, Loxo is the only one of the two that lets you solve both problems on one invoice, and Loxo publishes free migration for teams of three or more seats. That does not make the migration painless, but it does mean the switching cost is not also a line item.

The uncomfortable summary is that the cheaper published seat is not the cheaper product in either direction. Juicebox at $99 is cheap because it does less on purpose. Loxo at $199 is expensive because it is two products. Which of those is waste depends entirely on what you already own.

Both vendors go to quote at a size many firms actually are, and even on the published tiers there are gaps worth closing. Five answers make two proposals genuinely comparable, and only one of them is the seat price.

First, the overage rate once the credits run out, and whether the tool blocks you or bills you. Neither vendor publishes this. It is the single number most likely to turn a predictable monthly cost into an unpredictable one, and it is the easiest thing in the world to ask for before signing rather than after.

Second, on Loxo, what a Credit Boost actually costs. Loxo publishes that 2x is 5,000 credits and 5x is 12,500 but prices both with sales, so the boosted cost per contact is unknowable from public information. If you expect to exceed 2,500 a seat, that price is part of your real rate and you should have it before you compare anything.

Third, on Juicebox, the price of recruiter six. Growth caps at five seats and Business is custom and annual only. If your plan crosses five people inside the contract term, you are signing without knowing your year-two cost, and the moment to ask is while you still have the option of not signing.

Fourth, what an export credit covers on Juicebox and what a bulk export looks like on Loxo. On a sourcing tool the export allowance is the real ceiling on how much data reaches your ATS. On a system of record it is the answer to what happens on the day you leave, and Loxo publishes no export allowance at all because the data is supposed to stay.

Fifth, the renewal uplift for year two, in writing, on both. Annual billing is where both of these get cheap, and annual billing is also where a quiet increase at renewal is hardest to refuse once your entire candidate history lives inside the product.

Both of these tools end at the same place: a list of names and a verified way to email them. Everything after that is still a person. Someone opens each profile and judges it against what the hiring manager actually meant rather than what the job description says. Someone writes the first message so it does not read like the other nine that landed that week. Someone chases the follow-up on day four and day nine, keeps the shortlist warm while a hiring manager is away, and rewrites the search when the first twenty replies say the seniority is wrong.

That work is the real constraint on how many roles one recruiter can carry, and no seat price or credit allowance on this page touches it. It is why two firms buying identical software get very different results from it, and why a cheaper tool in the hands of someone with time usually beats an expensive one bought by a team already underwater. It is also why a bigger credit pool can be a trap: 12,500 reveals a month only helps if somebody has the hours to use them well.

It is the reason we price HireAgent per open role rather than per seat or per credit. Seat pricing bills you for how many people are logged in and credit pricing bills you for how many addresses you looked up. Role pricing bills you for how much hiring you are actually doing. When hiring is lumpy, which for most firms it is, those numbers diverge quickly, and only one of them matches the value you got that month.