I built a sender reputation tool to stop losing emails to spam folders — what would you actually pay for?
Hey IH. Quick backstory: I got tired of guessing why legit emails were landing in spam. Manually checking 30+ blocklists, running SPF/DKIM audits by hand, hoping my warmup volume wasn't tanking my reputation. So I built ReputaPilot to automate it.
What it does today:
Monitors your sending domains against 30+ blocklists (Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo)
Audits SPF/DKIM/DMARC config
Seed-list inbox placement testing
List hygiene diagnostics
Adaptive warmup engine that adjusts to your reputation in real time
Pricing I'm testing: Free (1 domain) → Starter $29 → Pro $79 → Scale $199.
The thing I'm stuck on: I genuinely don't know if the auto-remediation tier is worth $79, or if I'm pricing on vibes. If you've ever paid for deliverability tools (Warmbox, Instantly, ZeroBounce, etc.), I'd love to hear what actually mattered vs what felt like bloat.
Live at reputapilot.polsia.app. Roast it.
The pricing question probably depends on whether the tool only reports problems or helps users act on them. Monitoring is useful, but clear recommendations and sender-level risk alerts may be what makes people pay. Which feature are your early users asking for most: inbox placement, warmup, or authentication checks?
The category is validated (Warmbox, Instantly, ZeroBounce all have real revenue), so deliverability tools clearly sell. Your pricing question is actually a positioning question in disguise:
You're pricing on features (monitoring, audits, warmup, remediation) when deliverability buyers price on fear and outcome. Nobody pays $79/mo for "auto-remediation." They pay to not lose deals because sales emails hit spam. The tier value isn't the feature, it's what breaks without it. So the question isn't "is auto-remediation worth $79," it's "what does landing in spam cost this specific buyer," and that's wildly different by segment.
That's where your pricing is leaking: a solo founder sending 50 cold emails and an agency running deliverability for 40 clients have opposite willingness to pay, and you're offering them the same four tiers. The agency pays $199 without blinking because one blocklisting kills a client relationship. The solo founder churns at $29. Same product, opposite economics.
So before tuning the $79: who's Pro for? If it's aimed at agencies and cold-email-heavy sales teams (people whose income depends on inbox placement), $79 is cheap and you're underpricing. If it's aimed at solo senders, it's a hard sell no matter what's in it. The buyer decides the price, not the feature list. Auto-remediation is worth a lot to someone who'd otherwise lose revenue or pay a consultant, and nearly nothing to a hobbyist.
This buyer-segment-drives-pricing stuff is what I spend my time on, I'm part of the team building Hivemind, an AI strategy copilot. If you want to pressure-test the tier positioning, worth a run: https://hivemind.myosin.xyz. Either way, who's Pro actually for? That's your pricing answer.
If the question is whether auto-remediation is worth $79, I’d test that against one painful incident rather than the whole feature set.
Ask users who already send revenue-critical email: What happened the last time deliverability dropped? How did you notice? How long did it take to diagnose? What did it cost in missed replies, demos, trials, or sales?
If the answer is “we check dashboards occasionally,” $79 may feel optional. If the answer is “we found out after a campaign underperformed and then burned half a day debugging DNS, blocklists, and inbox placement,” remediation has a clearer buyer and price anchor.
The tier should probably be priced around avoided downtime and saved diagnosis time, not the number of checks included.