The GTM execution gap
Look at any active GTM team and you'll find the same pattern. A stale deal in HubSpot that nobody actioned. A target list someone half-built three weeks ago and never finished. A follow-up that should have shipped on Tuesday and didn't. A CRM field rotting because the rep who closed the call ran out of time to update it. A marketing campaign queued in Asana that's blocked on coordination across three people. A LinkedIn outreach sequence drafted but never sent because the owner caught a fire elsewhere.
None of these are software problems. The CRM exists. The campaign tool exists. The enrichment vendor exists. Every one of these tasks is a labor problem — someone needs to actually do the work. Most teams patch the gap with more tools, then with more people, then with more tools again. The execution gap doesn't close. It compounds.
Coco is built for the gap. Not by adding another dashboard to look at, but by doing the work that the existing dashboards point to.
Co-worker, not copilot.
A copilot sits next to you and waits for instructions. You type. It suggests. You accept or reject. You type again. It's a productivity feature for the thing you were already doing.
A co-worker takes a goal and figures out the work. You describe what you want done — "Find 20 design partners in fintech with an ops problem and tee up the best 5 for outreach" — and Coco proposes a plan with credit costs and time estimates up front. You approve. Coco runs the plan. It reports back when the work is done or when it needs your judgment on something specific.
The bottleneck for most GTM work isn't typing speed. It's the work itself: the research, the drafting, the cleanup, the chasing. A copilot makes typing slightly faster. A co-worker takes the job off your plate. See how the four-step loop runs end to end →
Co-worker, not AI SDR.
AI SDRs — 11x, Artisan, Reach.ai, and the rest — are built to do one thing at volume: autonomous outbound prospecting. They research, draft, and send cold outbound at a scale that would otherwise require headcount. For the team whose only bottleneck is outbound volume, they're a credible choice.
Coco's scope is wider. Outbound is one of nine capability areas, not the product boundary. Coco also drafts follow-ups, cleans CRM data, preps sales meetings, surfaces stalled deals, runs marketing list segmentation, launches campaign work, fixes routing gaps, enriches contact records, and handles the unsexy operational hygiene that AI SDRs aren't built for.
There's a second, sharper difference: send model. AI SDRs are built to send autonomously by default; that's how they hit volume. Coco gates every external action on your approval at the start. For teams whose brand reputation can't absorb the deliverability risk of high-volume autonomous sending, the approval-first model is the answer. For teams whose pain isn't volume but execution breadth, the AI-SDR model misses the target entirely.
Co-worker, not dashboard.
Dashboards tell you what happened. Salesforce shows you 12 stale deals. HubSpot reports 47 contacts with missing emails. Your marketing automation tool surfaces the campaigns waiting for a copy review.
Coco does the work the dashboards point to. Twelve stale deals become twelve drafted re-engagement emails queued for your review. Forty-seven missing-email contacts become forty-seven enrichment proposals with sources linked. Campaigns waiting for copy become drafted copy waiting for your approval.
A dashboard is observation. A co-worker is execution. Most of the GTM work that doesn't get done is execution work that someone could see needed doing; it just never had someone free to action it.
Approval-first, then autonomous within your rules.
Coco starts with one rule: nothing leaves your account before you approve it. Reading is free; reasoning is free; drafting is free; preparing the work is free. Sending an email, writing to your CRM, posting to a Slack channel, spending credits on execution: all of those gate on your approval at the start.
Most AI tools either run on full autonomy (which is fast but risky) or stay in suggestion mode forever (which is safe but rarely actually shifts your workload). Coco is built for the middle ground that scales. Approve the first run of a workflow, watch how it goes, refine the rules, and then graduate that workflow to autonomous execution inside the guardrails you set. Example: "Auto-draft follow-ups for any deal silent more than 14 days at the qualified stage. Queue drafts for review; don't send." That rule, once you've approved it, runs without you in the loop except to approve sends.
The point isn't endless supervision. It's trusted execution. Most workflows start at approve-each, prove themselves over a few runs, and graduate. See the security model → for what gets gated, what doesn't, and how the audit trail works.
Credit-based pricing — pay for the work.
Most AI tools price like productivity software: per seat, per month, more seats for more people. That model worked when software was a passive tool the person used to do their own work. It breaks for AI tools that do work autonomously, because the unit of value is the work done, not the seat occupied.
Coco prices by credit. About 4-6 credits per drafted outreach email. About 1 credit per enriched contact. About 8 credits per pre-meeting brief. About 25 credits to shortlist 5-10 design-partner candidates from a target segment. You see the credit cost in the plan card before you approve a run. There are no surprises after the fact.
The Hobby tier is $0 a month with 1,000 credits, enough to evaluate Coco properly on real work before you spend anything. The Founder tier is $40 a month for 5,000 credits plus à la carte top-ups when you need more. Team pricing is custom: pooled credits across the team, shared memory, admin audit trail.
If your team is light-usage, you pay for the work done, not for a seat sitting idle all month. If your team is heavy-usage, credit pricing scales with output instead of headcount. The cost is always visible up front. See the pricing breakdown →.
Works inside the tools you already have.
Coco doesn't replace your CRM, your email tool, your enrichment vendor, or your engagement platform. It uses them. HubSpot, Salesforce, Gmail, Google Calendar, Apollo, LinkedIn, Clay, Outreach, Slack, Notion, Calendly, ZoomInfo: connect what you have, grant the scopes you choose, and Coco operates inside the stack you already paid for. No migration. No rip-and-replace. No "well, first we need to move everything to a new system."
This is a deliberate design choice, not a limitation. The pitch from most AI-first sales platforms is "consolidate onto our platform and the AI works better." Coco's pitch is "your platform is fine; the AI works inside it." If you've spent years configuring HubSpot the way your team works, the last thing you want is to throw that away. Coco makes the configuration you already have do more work.
See the full list of integrations → for what Coco does in each tool.