Sellozo review: a visual campaign builder on a flat fee that undercuts us

Who owns it, and what their own site now says

Netrush, an ecommerce accelerator, acquired Sellozo in October 2021. The useful development since the last time this page was written is that you no longer have to take that from trade coverage: Sellozo's own published content refers to a shared portfolio of brands managed by Netrush and Sellozo, and to practice developed across both. The relationship is on their materials, not just in an archived press release.

What it changes for a buyer is who you are buying from. Sellozo sits inside a group that also sells services to brands, and that cuts both ways honestly. Service teams using their own tooling on live accounts every day tend to keep it grounded in what an operator actually needs, and it shows in the product. It can also mean the roadmap serves the parent's accounts before it serves yours.

So ask on the call rather than assume: who is the product team now, how many people are on it, and what shipped in the last two quarters. Those are reasonable questions to put to any vendor inside a larger group, and a straight answer is worth more than the org chart.

The pricing, in full, read on 21 August 2026

Sellozo has collapsed what used to be a five-step ladder of consultation tiers into one plan, stated on its pricing page under the heading Flat Rate Pricing.

• $250 a month for the first marketplace, and $50 a month for each additional marketplace. Four connections is $400 a month all in.
• No percentage of ad spend. The page says so in terms, more than once.
• A 30-day free trial, then month-to-month billing. Their own copy is explicit that there are no contracts and cancellation carries no penalty.
• Unlimited users on the account, which is not universal in this category and gets quietly useful the moment more than one person touches the ads.
• A separate agency plan, sold from its own page on per-seat pricing rather than per marketplace. If you run client accounts, price that one instead — the self-serve figures above will mislead you.

Two consequences. First, if you are working from a comparison table that lists Sellozo as a five-tier ladder, throw it out; that ladder is gone and nothing on it is buyable. Second, this is a genuinely low-commitment evaluation — a month free, then a month at a time, on a number you can read before you speak to anybody. That combination is rarer than it should be and it deserves saying plainly by a competitor.

One thing to pin down: what counts as a marketplace on your particular account. Price it against the marketplaces you will actually be running in twelve months rather than today's, then compare the total.

The concession: on fee arithmetic, Sellozo beats us everywhere

We charge a base plus a percentage of ad spend. Sellozo charges neither a percentage nor anything that grows. There is no clever framing that makes our invoice the smaller one, so here it is stated flatly.

Dr. PPC starts at $300/month before a dollar of percentage is added. Sellozo's single-marketplace plan is $250 and stays there. Their fee is lower than ours at every spend level, including at zero spend, and the two lines never cross. Add three more marketplaces to their side and they reach $400, which we pass at about $3,300 of monthly ad spend — so even in their most expensive configuration, they are cheaper than us for anyone whose budget is worth automating.

Anyone who has done this arithmetic already knows it, and pretending otherwise is how a reader stops believing the rest of a page. What is fair to add is what the fee buys on each side, because that is the actual trade rather than a rhetorical one. A flat software fee buys an instrument that waits for you to pick it up; nobody is reviewing your search terms on the Tuesday you spend in a warehouse. A percentage-based managed fee buys the work getting done whether or not you open anything. If your constraint is instruments, the cheaper line item is obviously right. If your constraint is attention, the cheaper line item is the more expensive decision, and no amount of interface improves it.

The second thing worth adding is the cap. An uncapped percentage genuinely does get frightening at scale, which is the fear their pricing page is built on and it is not an unreasonable one. Ours stops at $2,500 a month, which turns our curve into a flat fee above roughly $73,000 of monthly spend. That does not make us cheaper than them. It makes us predictable, which is a smaller claim, and it is the true one.

The block on their pricing page that gets mistaken for a price ladder

Underneath the plan, Sellozo's pricing page carries a comparison against percentage-of-spend pricing, showing $1,000, $1,500 and $2,500 a month. Those are not Sellozo tiers and you cannot buy any of them. They are an illustration of what an agency charging 2%, 3% or 5% would cost on a $50,000 monthly ad budget, set beside the flat fee.

It reads at a glance like a price ladder, and we have seen those three figures repeated in comparison posts as though it were one. It is a rhetorical device and a common one. Do not budget from it — and check which block you are reading on any vendor's pricing page, ours included, because a comparison illustration sitting under a real plan is the single easiest thing in this category to misquote.

The argument underneath it deserves a straight answer rather than a dodge. Their case is that a fee indexed to spend rewards spending, and it is a fair thing to raise. Two honest responses. The first is that the incentive runs the other way too: a fee that does not move with the account gets paid whether the account grows, shrinks or is ignored, and a vendor with no exposure to your outcome has no financial reason to notice a bad month. Neither structure is virtuous; they simply misalign in opposite directions, and the fix in both cases is a cap, a term you can leave, and reporting you can check. The second is arithmetic on their own example: at that $50,000 budget our fee would be $1,800, sitting between their 3% and 5% lines — with our software included rather than sold alongside, and with the weekly execution being the thing you are buying rather than the tool to do it with. That is a real difference in what is on the invoice, and it is for you to price, not us.

Campaign Studio, and the problem it is quietly solving

Strip away the marketing and the distinctive thing Sellozo built is a visual campaign builder. You lay campaigns out on a canvas, connect them, and see the structure of the account as a shape rather than as a spreadsheet four hundred rows deep. Users describe it as one of the more intuitive interfaces in a category not famous for them, and the praise is specific enough to be believable.

That matters more than an interface feature usually does, because account structure is where the real damage hides and it is the hardest thing to hold in your head. Most Amazon accounts carry structure inherited from whoever ran them two agencies ago — which campaign is harvesting, which is defending, which has been quietly duplicating another for a year.

One account we audited held about 17,000 campaigns, of which fewer than 200 had spent money in the previous 60 days. That is one enterprise vendor account rather than a typical figure, and we are not offering it as a benchmark. But nothing was broken: every one of those campaigns was technically active. Legacy structures accumulate through agency changes, tool migrations and seasonal builds nobody archives, and they make every subsequent report slower and less trustworthy. The first question in any account review should be how many campaigns actually spent last month, because that number is the real size of the account.

A tool that draws the structure instead of listing it is a genuine answer to that, and it is the reason to buy Sellozo rather than something cheaper. Around it sit the expected pieces — automated bid adjustments, keyword and negative management, dayparting, reporting — competently done.

The public record, opened rather than repeated

Every rating below was pulled from the platform that issues it on 21 August 2026, with the count printed beside it. We do this because we got it wrong once: we published a page recommending a product on an aggregator's headline score, and when we finally opened the platforms that aggregate was supposedly built from, one read very differently and the other carried no reviews at all. The page was deleted rather than patched. A score without its count is not a fact, and a score from a site that repeats other sites is not a source.

• Trustpilot — TrustScore 4.7 across 73 reviews. This is the substantive record: enough entries to mean something, spanning years rather than a launch window.
• G2 — a Sellozo listing exists and carries no rating and no reviews.
• Capterra — a listing exists with no rating attached.

The honest reading is that Sellozo has one real public record and it is a good one. Its absence from the two software directories is not a signal about the product; it is a signal about where a Kansas City company with a self-serve motion has spent its review-solicitation effort. Do not read an empty G2 profile as a verdict, in either direction. And for balance: we operate no public review programme at all, so on this measure Sellozo is ahead of us and there is nothing for us to point at.

They publish who they are not for, which almost nobody does

The most creditable thing on Sellozo's site is not the price. It is that they publish, in their own words, who the product does not suit: sellers who launched within the past week with no sales history, advertisers spending under $2,000 a month because that is below the threshold where optimisation means anything, sellers who want a guaranteed ACOS number, and very large advertisers above $200,000 a month who will need enterprise tooling with deeper Amazon Marketing Cloud integration. Their stated sweet spot is a brand with $1M to $25M of annual Amazon revenue, $10K to $150K of monthly ad spend and 10 to 250 ASINs.

Almost no vendor in this category will write that down, and a buyer can use it immediately. If you are outside those edges, believe them — they have told you the answer for free and saved you a trial.

Sellozo suits you better than we do if you want to hold the controls, value seeing your account structure drawn rather than listed, and prefer a fee that does not move as you grow. That is a legitimate preference and the cheaper one.

Dr. PPC is the other purchase: the execution rather than the console. It reads the whole ad account, writes a strategy per product against that brand's own unit economics, and puts each proposed change in front of you with its evidence, a measurement plan and a rollback trigger. You set how much runs unattended; inventory risk, pricing, launches and creative always come to a person. $300/month plus 3% of ad spend, capped, month to month, first 30 days free, with Orbit — analytics, search terms, campaign and ASIN profitability, keyword and traffic tracking, inventory, finance and the BSR, buy box, price and fee trackers — included at no additional charge.

Two redirects rather than a link list. If what you want is people owning listings, catalogue and supply alongside advertising, that is Full Circle, the full-service Amazon management company these products came out of, with $500M+ in managed revenue across 100+ brands. If sponsored ads are already tight and the growth has stalled anyway, better bidding will return very little and the question becomes reach — Dr. DSP is that conversation, and reMKTR is the same capability bought as a service.