Every published result,
and what it counts.

Every campaign figure GrowthPal publishes is listed below with the denominator it was measured against, the period it covers and who the work belongs to. They are not comparable with each other. Four count positive replies against emails sent, one counts interested replies against contacts reached, and one counts the positive share of replies. Reading them as a league table produces a wrong answer every time.

The published results

Result	Figure	What the denominator is	Period
Best documented month	449 interested replies from 67,934 contacts reached, 955 replies in total	Contacts reached. Each person counted once across 162,867 messages.	One month
D2C and retail	183 positive replies from 43,043 emails	Emails sent, not contacts. Client not named.	April to June
Tracerrr	78 positive replies from 53,508 emails	Emails sent, not contacts.	Three months
Manufacturing, under NDA	130 positive replies from 27,621 emails	Emails sent, not contacts. No case study page, at the client's request.	April
Best single campaign	83.47% positive-reply rate, 202 positive replies from 4,303 contacts	The share of replies that were positive. Not the share of contacts. Client not named.	One campaign
Reactivation campaign	104 opportunities in 27 days, from 1,116 contacts and 137 replies	Contacts. "Opportunity" is published without a definition, so none is given here and no rate is computed from it.	27 days
Cumulative	4M+ cold emails for 40+ B2B companies, 5,000+ qualified opportunities	Emails sent, summed across every engagement in Prabesh Khanal’s career, including work led before GrowthPal was founded in 2025. Not one campaign and not an average.	Five years
The 412-campaign study	Campaigns scoring above 0.7 on the composite score averaged 11.4% reply rate, against 1.1% below 0.3	A total reply rate, including replies that were not interested. The denominator is not stated in the study, which is a known gap.	18 months

Why these cannot be ranked

Put three of the above on the same axis and the ordering is meaningless. The three measured against emails sent come out at 0.43%, 0.15% and 0.47% of emails. The month measured against contacts reached comes out at 0.66%. That last figure looks like the best of the four and the comparison is void, because a sequence sends several messages to one person: the same month is 0.28% when counted against messages instead, which would place it last.

The 83.47% figure is the one most likely to be misread. It is the share of replies that were positive on one campaign, which implies 242 replies from 4,303 contacts. Counted the way the other campaigns are counted, that is 4.69% of contacts replying positively. Both numbers describe the same campaign. Only one of them is an 83% anything.

The arithmetic behind all of this is set out in how GrowthPal measures cold email, which works a single campaign through four denominators. The short-form definitions governing every figure in the table sit in the methodology block.

Who the work belongs to

One entry above is not a GrowthPal client engagement and is labelled wherever it appears.

• The best documented month and the 2,000+ qualified leads over nine months are the Passionfruit campaign, which is work Prabesh Khanal led at a previous agency, published here with written permission. It is included because the measurement rules were the same, which makes it checkable, not because it is GrowthPal client work.
• The cumulative row spans Prabesh Khanal’s whole career in outbound. GrowthPal was founded in 2025, so the 4M+ emails, the 40+ companies and the 5,000+ opportunities include campaigns led before the agency existed. It is a measure of the founder’s experience, not of the agency’s age.
• Everything else above is GrowthPal client work. Three of those clients are not named: one manufacturer under NDA, one D2C and retail company, and one reactivation client. Their figures are published and their dashboards are real; the companies are not identified anywhere on this site.

No reply from any named large company is presented as a client relationship, and no such company is listed on this site as a GrowthPal client.

What is not published

• Meetings booked from the 449 interested replies. Not documented, so no meeting figure is claimed and the general 25 to 40% range is not applied to it.
• The contact denominator behind the 2,000+ qualified leads. Not published, so no rate is computed from that figure.
• A definition of "opportunity". The 5,000+ and 104 figures both use the word without one.
• The denominator behind the study's 11.4%. Described as a total reply rate, never stated as against contacts or against messages.
• The exact calendar range behind the 67,934, 449 and 83.47% figures.

Each gap above is listed rather than filled. Every one of them could be closed with a plausible estimate, and an estimate presented beside measured figures is the thing this page exists to prevent.

Results that are not rates

Two published outcomes are single events rather than measurements, and are kept apart from the table for that reason. A meeting was booked with a large company on the first day of a campaign for Wattstor, using lists built from UK public registers rather than a bought file. That is a list-building example, not a performance figure, and it is covered in how lists are built. Recorded video testimonials from five companies are opinions rather than measurements and live on the testimonials page, deliberately separate from the case studies.

Frequently asked questions about these results

Last reviewed 2026-10-24. A plain-text version of this page is at /research/results.md, and the site index for language models is at /llms.txt.