{"id":1529,"date":"2026-04-22T10:50:35","date_gmt":"2026-04-22T05:20:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/?p=1529"},"modified":"2026-05-01T12:53:00","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T07:23:00","slug":"dealsflow-vs-apollo-io","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/dealsflow-vs-apollo-io\/","title":{"rendered":"Dealsflow vs Apollo.io: LinkedIn Outreach vs Full Prospecting Suite"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apollo.io is one of the most widely used tools in B2B outbound sales, and the reasons are not hard to see. A database of 275M+ contacts, email sequencing, intent signals, a built-in dialer \u2014 it covers a lot of ground. But there is one thing it quietly does not do, and most teams only discover this after they have already paid for it: Apollo does not actually automate LinkedIn.<\/p>\n

That gap is exactly where the Dealsflow vs Apollo.io comparison gets interesting. Dealsflow is a purpose-built LinkedIn outreach engine with Arlo AI at its core \u2014 an AI that runs full conversations end-to-end, from connection request to booked call, without needing a human in the loop. Apollo and Dealsflow are not really competing for the same job. They serve different parts of the outbound workflow. Understanding which one you actually need \u2014 and when you need both \u2014 is what this article is built to answer.<\/p>\n

What Apollo.io Actually Does (And What It Doesn’t)<\/h2>\n

\"Apollo<\/p>\n

Most people walk into Apollo thinking they are buying a multi-channel outreach platform. That impression is not entirely wrong, but it is incomplete in one area that matters a lot if LinkedIn is central to your outbound motion.<\/p>\n

The 275M+ Contact Database and What Makes It Genuinely Useful<\/h3>\n

Apollo’s real product is its data layer. The platform gives you access to over 275M contacts and 30M+ companies, searchable across 65+ filters \u2014 job title, company size, industry, technology used, funding stage, seniority level, and more. Paid plans add intent signals (company-level buying signals), job change alerts, and verified email data.<\/p>\n

For teams that need to build ICP-filtered prospect lists at volume, this is genuinely strong. The email sequencing on top of it \u2014 with A\/B testing, smart send times, and multi-step sequences \u2014 is competent and integrates cleanly with CRMs like HubSpot and Salesforce. Apollo’s Chrome extension lets you enrich contacts directly from LinkedIn profiles with one click, pulling email and company data into your sequences without leaving the browser.<\/p>\n

This is what Apollo was built around: find the right people, get their verified contact info, and reach out over email and phone. It does those things well.<\/p>\n

Where Apollo’s “LinkedIn Automation” Actually Stops<\/h3>\n

Here is where the comparison with Dealsflow gets specific, and where a lot of teams get caught off-guard.<\/p>\n

Apollo includes LinkedIn steps in its outreach sequences. When you build a multi-step sequence, you can add a LinkedIn connection request or a LinkedIn message as a step. What happens when that step triggers? A task notification appears in your Apollo dashboard telling you to go send it.<\/p>\n

That is not automation. That is a reminder.<\/p>\n

You still have to open LinkedIn, navigate to the prospect’s profile, and manually send the connection request or message yourself. Apollo cannot send LinkedIn messages on your behalf. It is a workflow prompt, not a workflow executor. This is not a flaw in the technical sense \u2014 Apollo made this choice deliberately to avoid violating LinkedIn’s terms of service. But the word “automation” in their marketing creates an expectation that the product does not fully deliver on LinkedIn specifically.<\/p>\n

The credit system reinforces this. Apollo’s credits are consumed when you reveal emails or phone numbers. LinkedIn actions do not consume credits \u2014 because Apollo is not taking any LinkedIn action for you.<\/p>\n

The Post-Reply Gap Apollo Leaves Open<\/h3>\n

Even in channels where Apollo does automate (email, primarily), the sequence ends when a prospect replies. Apollo detects the reply, pauses the sequence, and passes the conversation back to your SDR. From there, your team reads the response and writes back manually.<\/p>\n

This is standard behavior for nearly every sequence-based outreach tool. But it means the moment a prospect engages, the automation stops and a human takes over. For teams running high volume across many accounts, that handoff is where leads go cold. The SDR gets to a reply four hours later, the prospect has moved on, and the booking rate suffers.<\/p>\n

Apollo has no mechanism for reading the reply, interpreting intent, and continuing the conversation autonomously. That gap is not a minor limitation \u2014 for LinkedIn-focused teams, it is the central problem.<\/p>\n

What Dealsflow Actually Does (And Where It Fits in the Stack)<\/h2>\n

\"Dealsflow\"<\/p>\n

Dealsflow<\/a> is not an Apollo replacement. It is what happens on LinkedIn after you have identified the right prospect. The distinction matters because conflating the two leads to buying the wrong tool for the wrong problem.<\/p>\n

Arlo AI: The Engine That Runs Conversations Autonomously<\/h3>\n

Dealsflow’s core product is Arlo AI. Arlo connects to your LinkedIn accounts and handles the full outreach loop: sending connection requests, following up with personalized opening messages, and \u2014 this is the part that separates it from most tools \u2014 continuing the conversation after a prospect replies.<\/p>\n

When someone responds to an Arlo-sent message, Arlo reads the reply. It determines the intent: is this person interested? Raising an objection? Asking a clarifying question? Not interested at all? Based on that reading, Arlo crafts a response in the sender’s voice and sends it. If the prospect says “we already use a tool for this,” Arlo does not stop. It acknowledges the point and pivots: “Fair question. Most tools stop when someone replies. Arlo actually continues the conversation \u2014 handles objections, answers questions, and books the call. Would 15 minutes this Thursday work to see it live?” If the conversation reaches a positive signal, Arlo moves to book the meeting.<\/p>\n

The key distinction from standard LinkedIn automation tools like Expandi or Dripify is that those tools stop when someone replies. They automate the send, not the conversation. Dealsflow automates both.<\/p>\n

Multi-Account Management Built for Agencies<\/h3>\n

Dealsflow’s multi-account infrastructure is a separate differentiator from Arlo. The platform supports up to 50 LinkedIn accounts from a single dashboard. Each account has its own inbox, campaign activity, and reply stream, but everything is visible and manageable from one login.<\/p>\n

For a lead gen agency running outreach across 15 or 20 client accounts, this is a different category of capability than what Apollo offers. Apollo’s per-seat model was built for internal sales teams, not for agencies managing LinkedIn outreach on behalf of clients. Dealsflow’s Agency Pilot plan at $299\/month covers 20 LinkedIn accounts under one flat rate, with per-client reporting, team management, and white-glove onboarding.<\/p>\n

What Dealsflow Does Not Do<\/h3>\n

This is worth saying plainly: Dealsflow does not have a 275M+ contact database. It does not do email outreach. It does not include a cold calling dialer. It does not have native CRM pipeline management at the depth that Apollo does.<\/p>\n

If you need to find leads from scratch across email and phone, or if your primary outbound channel is email rather than LinkedIn, Dealsflow is not the right primary tool. It is purpose-built for LinkedIn, and that focus is both its strength and its scope.<\/p>\n

LinkedIn Outreach Head-to-Head: Apollo vs Dealsflow<\/h2>\n

This is the practical comparison for teams evaluating both platforms specifically on LinkedIn performance. Six factors determine LinkedIn outreach results, and Apollo and Dealsflow handle each of them differently.<\/p>\n

Connection Request Automation<\/h3>\n

Apollo surfaces connection requests as manual task reminders. You see the task in your dashboard, click through to LinkedIn, and send it yourself. Dealsflow automates the send, applying personalized connection request notes based on prospect data, within daily limits that stay within LinkedIn’s current safety thresholds. For teams sending volume across multiple accounts, the difference in time and consistency is significant.<\/p>\n

Message Personalization<\/h3>\n

Apollo uses static templates with variable fields (first name, company name, job title). The personalization is at the merge-tag level. Dealsflow’s Arlo AI generates opening messages based on prospect signals: their bio, recent posts, company news, and ICP match. Two prospects at similar companies can receive meaningfully different messages based on what Arlo found in their profile. This is not template personalization \u2014 it is context-driven message generation.<\/p>\n

Reply Handling<\/h3>\n

Apollo sends a reply notification and waits for a human to respond. Dealsflow’s Arlo reads the reply and responds autonomously. This is the single biggest functional difference between the two tools on LinkedIn. Every other gap is a matter of degree. This one is binary: the tool either handles replies or it does not.<\/p>\n

Objection Handling<\/h3>\n

Apollo has no objection handling capability. When a prospect pushes back, the sequence pauses and the ball lands with your SDR. Arlo is built specifically to recognize the most common outbound objections \u2014 “not the right time,” “we already have something,” “send me more info,” “not interested” \u2014 and respond to each with a calibrated reply in the sender’s voice. You can review or override any of Arlo’s responses, but the default behavior is autonomous continuation.<\/p>\n

Account Safety<\/h3>\n

Apollo’s LinkedIn steps are safe by default because they are manual. There is no automated activity on your LinkedIn account, so there is no automation risk. Dealsflow automates the sends, which does carry account risk if done carelessly. Dealsflow addresses this with distributed cloud execution, randomized human-like timing (so messages do not go out at machine-precise intervals), automated account warmup for new profiles, and hard daily limits aligned with LinkedIn’s current thresholds. No tool can claim absolute zero risk on LinkedIn, but Dealsflow’s safety infrastructure was built specifically around this problem.<\/p>\n

Multi-Account Management<\/h3>\n

Apollo is per-seat and designed for internal sales teams using their own LinkedIn profiles. It was not built for agencies managing client accounts. Dealsflow has a dedicated agency dashboard for managing dozens of accounts from one login, with per-account analytics, client-level reporting, and a single billing relationship regardless of how many accounts are running.<\/p>\n

Pricing: What You Actually Pay Per Booked Call<\/h2>\n

Listed prices tell you very little. Cost per booked call tells you everything. Here is how the two platforms compare when you factor in what you actually spend to generate pipeline.<\/p>\n

Apollo.io Pricing Reality<\/h3>\n

\"Apollo<\/p>\n

Apollo’s 2026 pricing starts at $49\/user\/month on the Basic plan (billed annually). The Professional plan runs $79\/user\/month and adds a US dialer and parallel dialing. The Organization plan is $119\/user\/month with a minimum of three seats, adding international dialing, SSO, and custom reporting.<\/p>\n

Those numbers look manageable until you account for the credit system. Apollo allocates credits per plan, and credits are consumed when you reveal email addresses and phone numbers. On the Basic plan, you get 75 mobile credits per month \u2014 enough to reveal 75 phone numbers. If your team needs more, you buy overages. According to multiple user reviews and pricing analyses published in 2026, real Apollo costs frequently run two to three times the advertised rate once enrichment overages, phone credits, and add-ons are factored in.<\/p>\n

One more thing to factor in: Apollo’s LinkedIn steps require manual execution. That means your SDR’s time is part of the cost. At 100 LinkedIn connection requests per week across five accounts, you are looking at hours of manual LinkedIn activity per week that does not show up in the tool’s price.<\/p>\n

Dealsflow Pricing Reality<\/h3>\n

\"Dealsflow<\/p>\n

Dealsflow uses a flat-rate tier model, not per-seat pricing:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Starter Pilot:<\/strong> $59\/month, covers 1 LinkedIn account, includes Arlo AI, unlimited campaigns, and standard support<\/li>\n
  • Scaling Pilot:<\/strong> $149\/month, covers 5 LinkedIn accounts, adds priority AI processing, multi-account dashboard, and advanced analytics<\/li>\n
  • Agency Pilot:<\/strong> $349\/month, covers 20 LinkedIn accounts, adds white-glove setup, team management, custom workflows, and a dedicated manager<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    All plans include a 14-day free trial with no credit card required. There is no per-seat charge. An agency running 20 LinkedIn accounts pays $299 total per month, not $299 per person.<\/p>\n

    Cost-Per-Booked-Call Framing<\/h3>\n

    This is the metric that actually matters. Dealsflow’s dashboard benchmarks show 9 booked calls per day as a representative output across an active multi-account setup. If you are on the Agency Pilot plan at $299\/month running 20 accounts, the math on cost per booked call looks very different from a per-seat SaaS tool where LinkedIn steps still require human execution.<\/p>\n

    Apollo’s email outreach can be highly efficient if email is your primary channel. But if LinkedIn is where your meetings come from, and your LinkedIn steps require an SDR to manually send every message, the true cost of LinkedIn pipeline through Apollo includes headcount, not just the tool subscription.<\/p>\n

    Which Tool Fits Which Team<\/h2>\n

    This is where the false choice falls apart. The question is not “Apollo or Dealsflow.” The question is which one matches your primary outreach motion \u2014 and for many teams, the right answer is both.<\/p>\n

    Scenario A: Solo Founder or Small Team, Email-Primary, LinkedIn Is Secondary<\/h3>\n

    Apollo is likely the right call. The database is strong, the email sequencing works, and at low LinkedIn volume, the manual task-reminder approach is manageable. The founder is probably replying to prospects manually anyway, so Apollo’s post-reply behavior is not a gap. The contact database and email automation justify the price.<\/p>\n

    Scenario B: SDR Team Running LinkedIn as a Primary Channel<\/h3>\n

    Apollo’s LinkedIn feature is a liability in this scenario. The team is paying for a multi-channel tool but still executing LinkedIn manually. At scale \u2014 dozens of connection requests per day per rep, across multiple campaigns \u2014 the manual execution adds up. More importantly, reply handling falls entirely on the SDR, and reply speed on LinkedIn is correlated directly with booking rates. Dealsflow is the right primary tool here. Apollo can remain in the stack as a data source, feeding enriched leads into Dealsflow campaigns.<\/p>\n

    Scenario C: Lead Gen Agency Managing Outreach for 5 to 50 Clients<\/h3>\n

    Apollo’s per-seat model was not designed for this use case. Managing client LinkedIn accounts in Apollo means one seat per account or a messy workaround. Dealsflow’s Agency Pilot is built specifically for this scenario: one dashboard, 20 accounts, per-client reporting, flat rate. Apollo may still be useful as a data layer if the agency needs to find and enrich leads before importing them into Dealsflow campaigns.<\/p>\n

    The Stack Answer<\/h3>\n

    Apollo finds the leads. Dealsflow runs the LinkedIn conversation. For teams that treat LinkedIn as a primary pipeline channel, these tools are not competitors. They are adjacent layers in the same workflow. Apollo’s database and email infrastructure sits upstream. Dealsflow’s Arlo AI sits at the LinkedIn conversation layer. Each does what the other does not.<\/p>\n

    Conclusion<\/h2>\n

    The comparison framing most people bring to a Dealsflow vs Apollo.io search is the wrong one. Apollo is a prospecting and email platform that includes lightweight LinkedIn steps. Dealsflow is a LinkedIn outreach engine with autonomous conversation handling. Measuring them against each other as if they do the same job produces a misleading answer.<\/p>\n

    The more useful question is: what is your primary outreach channel, and does your current tool actually automate that channel \u2014 or does it just remind you to do it manually?<\/p>\n

    If email is your primary channel and LinkedIn is supplementary, Apollo covers your needs. If LinkedIn is where your meetings come from and you are running it manually inside a sequence tool, you are paying for automation you are not getting. The post-reply gap \u2014 what happens after someone responds \u2014 is where most LinkedIn outreach either converts to pipeline or dies quietly. Apollo leaves that gap open. Dealsflow closes it.<\/p>\n

    Before making a decision, map your last 90 days of booked calls back to their source. If LinkedIn is responsible for more than 30% of them, a dedicated LinkedIn automation tool with real conversation handling is worth the separate investment. If email drives most of your pipeline, Apollo alone may be sufficient.<\/p>\n

    The tools are not enemies. For teams serious about both channels, the right answer is almost always: Apollo for data and email, Dealsflow for LinkedIn conversations. One finds the people. The other books the meetings.<\/p>\n

    Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n

    What is the difference between Dealsflow and Apollo.io?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Apollo.io is a sales intelligence and email sequencing platform with a 275M+ contact database, intent signals, and a cold calling dialer. Its LinkedIn steps in sequences are manual task reminders, not true automation. Dealsflow is a LinkedIn-specific outreach platform where Arlo AI runs the full conversation \u2014 from connection request through reply handling and objection management \u2014 without requiring human intervention. They serve different parts of the outbound workflow and are often used together.<\/p>\n

    Does Apollo.io automate LinkedIn outreach?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Not in a true automation sense. Apollo includes LinkedIn as a step in multi-channel sequences, but when that step triggers, it creates a task notification in your dashboard. You still have to open LinkedIn manually and send the connection request or message yourself. Apollo does not send LinkedIn messages on your behalf. This is a deliberate design choice to avoid LinkedIn’s terms of service restrictions, but it means the LinkedIn feature is a workflow prompt rather than workflow execution.<\/p>\n

    Can Dealsflow replace Apollo.io?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    No. Dealsflow does not have a contact database, email sequencing, or a cold calling dialer. If you need to find and enrich leads at scale across email and phone, you still need Apollo or a similar data platform. Dealsflow handles the LinkedIn conversation layer \u2014 it runs outreach, handles replies, manages objections, and books meetings on LinkedIn. The two tools are complementary: Apollo finds the leads, Dealsflow runs the LinkedIn conversation.<\/p>\n

    What happens when a prospect replies on Apollo.io?<\/strong>\u00a0Apollo detects the reply, pauses the sequence, and creates a task or notification for your SDR to respond. The reply handling is entirely manual. Apollo does not read the reply, interpret intent, or draft a response on your behalf. Your team takes over from that point forward.<\/p>\n

    What happens when a prospect replies on Dealsflow?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Arlo AI reads the reply, determines the prospect’s intent \u2014 positive interest, objection, clarifying question, or disinterest \u2014 and crafts a contextually appropriate response in the sender’s voice. If the prospect raises an objection, Arlo responds with a specific rebuttal. If the prospect signals interest, Arlo moves toward booking a call. You can intervene, edit, or pause Arlo’s responses at any point, but the default behavior is autonomous continuation without human input.<\/p>\n

    Is Dealsflow safe for LinkedIn accounts?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Dealsflow uses cloud-based execution with randomized, human-like timing so messages do not go out at machine-precise intervals. It enforces hard daily limits aligned with LinkedIn’s current activity thresholds and includes an automated account warmup process for new or inactive profiles. No LinkedIn automation tool can claim absolute zero risk \u2014 LinkedIn can flag unusual activity regardless of how carefully a tool is configured. But Dealsflow’s safety infrastructure was built specifically around this problem, which is more than most tools offer.<\/p>\n

    How does Apollo.io pricing compare to Dealsflow in 2026?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Apollo’s paid plans start at $49\/user\/month (billed annually) on the Basic plan, rising to $119\/user\/month on the Organization tier with a minimum of three seats. Real costs frequently run two to three times the listed price due to credit overages, phone number reveals, and add-ons. Dealsflow uses flat-rate tier pricing: $49\/month for one LinkedIn account, $129\/month for five accounts, and $299\/month for twenty accounts. There is no per-seat charge. An agency running 20 LinkedIn accounts pays $299\/month total, which is structurally different from Apollo’s per-seat model.<\/p>\n

    Can I use Apollo.io and Dealsflow together?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Yes, and for many teams this is the optimal configuration. Apollo handles lead discovery and email outreach. Dealsflow imports those leads and runs the LinkedIn conversation through Arlo AI. The two tools occupy different stages of the outbound workflow. Apollo’s database strength and Dealsflow’s conversation automation cover ground that neither does well alone, particularly for teams that run LinkedIn and email as parallel channels.<\/p>\n

    Does Apollo.io work for LinkedIn lead generation without Sales Navigator?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Apollo’s Chrome extension can enrich contacts from standard LinkedIn profiles, but LinkedIn limits how much data you can access without a premium subscription. Sales Navigator significantly expands search filters, InMail access, and the volume of profiles you can view and export. For high-volume teams using Apollo’s LinkedIn enrichment feature, Sales Navigator is effectively a requirement rather than an optional add-on.<\/p>\n

    Is Dealsflow a good fit for lead generation agencies?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Yes, specifically because of its multi-account infrastructure and flat-rate pricing. The Agency Pilot plan at $299\/month covers 20 LinkedIn accounts with a single dashboard, per-client reporting, team management, and a dedicated account manager. Apollo’s per-seat model does not map cleanly to an agency model where you are managing LinkedIn outreach on behalf of multiple clients. Dealsflow was designed with that use case in mind from the start.<\/p>\n

    What is the biggest practical difference between Dealsflow and Apollo for LinkedIn?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Apollo generates a task reminder when a LinkedIn step in a sequence is due. A human has to execute it. When a prospect replies, a human has to handle it. Dealsflow automates the send and handles the reply through Arlo AI. The gap shows up most clearly at volume: an SDR managing ten LinkedIn connection requests a day can handle Apollo’s manual approach. A team running 200 connection requests a day across multiple accounts cannot.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Apollo.io is one of the most widely used tools in B2B outbound sales, and the reasons are not hard to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1533,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[60],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-comparison"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1529"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1529\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1619,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1529\/revisions\/1619"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1533"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}