Solved Marketing vs shared leads
The same prospect, reached under two completely different conditions. One agent calling, or several. Everything on this page follows from that single structural difference.
Quick verdict
Buy shared leads when your constraint is budget rather than agent hours: they are the cheapest records available, and a fast, disciplined floor can make the volume game work. Buy Solved Marketing when your constraint is licensed agent time: one buyer per record means your agent is having the first conversation, not the fourth, and the whole difference shows up in cost per acquisition rather than cost per lead.
Everything below about shared lead products describes the common shape of that category as set out in publicly published materials, rather than any one company.
Choose shared leads
You have more agent capacity than budget, your agents are fast, and being the third call does not rattle them.
Choose Solved Marketing
Your agents are licensed, expensive, and booked, and the scarce thing on your floor is hours rather than dollars.
Capability by capability
Categories rather than feature counts. Where we could not find a capability in publicly published materials, that is what the cell says.
| Capability | Solved MarketingSold onceone buyer per record | Shared lead poolsSold to severalpublicly documented |
|---|---|---|
| Buyers per record | OneBy policy rather than by pricing tier. | Several at once, with the count commonly set by the sellerAsk whether the cap is enforced by a system or is a target. |
| Headline cost per record | HigherOne sale carries the whole acquisition cost. | The lowest on the marketThe honest and structural advantage of the model. |
| Competitive position on the call | First and only conversationThe prospect has not already explained themselves three times. | Competing with other buyers on the same recordOrder of contact is decided by whoever dials first. |
| Resale later as an aged lead | NeverA record you bought does not come back to market. | Aged products are commonly published across the category |
| Where the demand comes from | Generated in houseWe buy the media and write the offers, so we know what every prospect was told. | Commonly aggregated from publishers and networks |
| Volume per dollar | Fewer records for the same spend | More records for the same spendIf your floor can genuinely work them, this matters. |
| Pressure on speed to dial | High, because intent decaysImportant, but you are not racing another agency for first position. | Extreme, because it is also a raceBeing second on a shared record costs more than being slow on an exclusive one. |
| Consent record chain of custody | Ours, captured at the formRetrievable by lead id, including the exact disclosure language shown. | Captured by the originating source and passed to each buyer |
| Buyer-defined disqualifiers | Yours, applied before delivery | Filter sets are commonly published, typically from a predefined list |
| Delivery timing | On submission, in secondsFour paths, including native into a dialer and a quoting platform. | Real-time posting to all buyers is commonly published |
| Agent experience | A conversationThe record carries what the prospect asked about, so the opening line is specific. | Higher call volume per sale, and more prospects who have already been contacted |
| Prospect experience | One call about one form | Several calls in a short windowThis is what produces the complaints most agencies attribute to lead quality. |
| Credit rules | Written before you buyAnd pattern review that changes the program rather than only crediting records. | Return policies are commonly published and vary by product |
| Pacing controls | Daily and hourly caps, dayparting, pause without penalty | Caps and scheduling are commonly published |
| Best fit for a large, fast, volume-trained floor | Works, but the economics favor quality over quantity | Built for exactly this |
| Best fit for a small team of experienced licensed agents | Built for exactly this | Workable, but agent hours go into contested conversations |
Comparisons describe the common shape of each category rather than any one product, and are based on publicly published materials.
Which one is right for you?
The deciding question is not which lead is better. It is which resource on your floor runs out first.
Choose shared leads if
- You have more agent capacity than budget, which is common on a growing floor
- Your agents dial fast, follow a cadence, and are not thrown by being the third call
- You measure at the cohort level and are comfortable running a volume game
- You want the maximum number of records for a fixed spend this month
- Your training process benefits from giving newer agents a lot of dials
Choose Solved Marketing if
- Licensed agent hours are the expensive input and you want them spent on live conversations
- Your close rate is strong when agents reach someone, so reachability is the real constraint
- You care about the prospect experience because your brand and your persistency depend on it
- You want the consent trail produced by the company that captured it, on request by lead id
- You are willing to measure cost per acquisition rather than cost per lead and act on the answer
FAQs
Solved Marketing vs shared leads: common questions
Are shared leads bad leads?
No. A shared lead can be the same person with the same intent as an exclusive one; the difference is how many agents are calling them. Shared pools are the cheapest records on the market and that is a real, structural advantage rather than a trick. The question is what happens to your close rate when your agent is the third or fourth call, and only your own numbers can answer it.
How many buyers does a shared lead go to?
It depends entirely on the seller, and the number is frequently not published. That is the first thing to ask, along with whether the number is a hard cap enforced by a system or a target. Semi-exclusive products are the same idea with a smaller and usually stated cap.
How do the prices compare?
We do not publish per-lead dollar amounts and we do not quote anyone else's. Structurally, a shared record costs less because one acquisition cost is spread across several sales, so each sale can carry a smaller price. An exclusive record has to carry the whole acquisition cost in a single sale. That difference is real and it is the honest case for shared leads.
How should I actually compare them?
Run both for the same weeks, with the same agents, the same script, and the same dial cadence. Track each cohort all the way to issued policies, then divide total spend by policies issued. Look again a quarter later with persistency included, because an acquisition that lapses was not cheap. Cost per lead will favor one and cost per acquisition may favor the other.
Does speed to dial matter more on shared leads?
It matters enormously on both, and on shared leads it is also a race. If several agents are working the same record, order of arrival is decided by whoever dials first. On an exclusive record speed still matters, because intent decays and the prospect is still holding the phone, but you are not competing for the first position.
Something else? Contact us
Run them side by side for a month.
Same agents, same script, same weeks. Then divide total spend by policies issued and let the arithmetic decide instead of the page.