Technographic Data Benchmark
Given a domain, which technologies does the provider report, and how many of them can be seen on the company's own website and DNS on the day of the run? Graded against a crawl we ran ourselves.
Leaderboard
| Provider | Coverage | Detection accuracy | Latency p50 | Cost / lookup | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1Apollo.io | 100.0%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 55.8%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 906msB (upper half of the field on this metric) | $0.025B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 3.4B (upper half of the field on this metric) |
| #2AI Ark | 96.0%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 54.0%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 1,158msD (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | $0.0003A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 3.4B (upper half of the field on this metric) |
| #3Hunter.io | 95.0%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 66.3%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 1,043msC (lower half of the field on this metric) | $0.0032A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 3.2B (upper half of the field on this metric) |
| #4Prospeo | 94.0%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 79.5%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 1,050msC (lower half of the field on this metric) | $0.021B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 3.1B (upper half of the field on this metric) |
| #5Forager | 95.0%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 63.5%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | - | $0.020B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 2.9B (upper half of the field on this metric) |
| #6LeadIQ | 93.8%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 51.3%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 306msA (top fifth of the field on this metric) | $0.139D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 2.1C (lower half of the field on this metric) |
| #7ContactOut | 85.0%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 35.5%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 707msA (top fifth of the field on this metric) | - | 2.1C (lower half of the field on this metric) |
| #8Coresignal live | 86.0%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 32.1%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 1,039msB (upper half of the field on this metric) | $0.150D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 1.8C (lower half of the field on this metric) |
| #9Findymail | 39.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 40.5%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 807msB (upper half of the field on this metric) | $0.034C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 1.5C (lower half of the field on this metric) |
| #10Fiber AI live | 83.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 18.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 1,131msD (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | $0.043C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 1.1D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) |
Grade, against the field on this metric:A (top fifth of the field on this metric)top fifthB (upper half of the field on this metric)upper halfC (lower half of the field on this metric)lower halfD (bottom fifth of the field on this metric)bottom fifth
Ranked by overall grade, the weighted mean of each provider's grades on every metric of the suite, core and specific; ties are broken on Coverage. Click any column to re-sort; # is the default rank.
Suite-specific metrics
What only this data type needs measured. Same providers, same run, same rank as the leaderboard. Wider than the page: scroll the table sideways for the remaining columns.
| Provider | Live stack recall | Technologies per domain | Dated results | Coverage by geo / size | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1Apollo.io | 61.8%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 73B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 0.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 100.0%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 3.4B (upper half of the field on this metric) |
| #2AI Ark | 39.9%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 38C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 0.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 80.0%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 3.4B (upper half of the field on this metric) |
| #3Hunter.io | 25.4%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 13C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 0.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 90.0%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 3.2B (upper half of the field on this metric) |
| #4Prospeo | 59.9%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 26C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 0.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 90.0%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 3.1B (upper half of the field on this metric) |
| #5Forager | 44.0%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 64B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 0.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 85.0%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 2.9B (upper half of the field on this metric) |
| #6LeadIQ | 76.5%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 87A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 0.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 84.6%B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 2.1C (lower half of the field on this metric) |
| #7ContactOut | 37.1%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 80A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 0.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 70.0%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 2.1C (lower half of the field on this metric) |
| #8Coresignal live | 14.6%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 51B (upper half of the field on this metric) | 100.0%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 75.0%C (lower half of the field on this metric) | 1.8C (lower half of the field on this metric) |
| #9Findymail | 6.6%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 8D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 100.0%A (top fifth of the field on this metric) | 0.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 1.5C (lower half of the field on this metric) |
| #10Fiber AI live | 6.6%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 3D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 0.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 65.0%D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) | 1.1D (bottom fifth of the field on this metric) |
Grade, against the field on this metric:A (top fifth of the field on this metric)top fifthB (upper half of the field on this metric)upper halfC (lower half of the field on this metric)lower halfD (bottom fifth of the field on this metric)bottom fifth
Overall grade
Weighted mean of each provider's grades on every metric of the suite, A = 4 to D = 1, in leaderboard order.
Verdict
10 providers ranked. On coverage, the field runs from 100.0% (Apollo.io) to 39.0% (Findymail): the gap is the reason to benchmark on the data you actually buy.
Price basis
The pack behind Cost / lookup, per provider: the central tier of its self-serve price ladder (on the public pricing page or after a free signup, never through sales) (the upper middle one when the count is even), in list price, monthly billing where offered, euro prices converted at 1 EUR = 1.1551 USD. Per request is the pack price divided by the requests it covers; Cost / lookup then divides it by the measured yield.
| Provider | Pack used | Pack price | Per request | Billed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apollo.io | Professional (1 seat)tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month4,000 credits | $0.0251 credit | Only when found |
| AI Ark | Usage Based 300,000 creditstier 7 of 12 | $879 / month300,000 credits | $0.0000.1 credits | Only when found |
| Hunter.io | Growthtier 2 of 3 | $149 / month10,000 credits | $0.0030.2 credits | Only when found |
| Prospeo | Growthtier 2 of 3 | $99 / month5,000 credits | $0.0201 credit | Only when found |
| Forager | Growthtier 2 of 3 | $100 / month5,250 credits | $0.0191 credit | Every request |
| LeadIQ | Pro 2,800 creditstier 27 of 53 | $127.12 / month2,800 credits | $0.1363 credits | Only when found |
| ContactOut | No public price | - | - | - |
| Coresignal live | Growthtier 4 of 7 | $1,000 / month150,000 credits | $0.13320 credits | Only when found |
| Findymail | Business Plustier 4 of 6 | $399 / month30,000 credits | $0.0131 credit | Only when found |
| Fiber AI live | Growthtier 2 of 3 | $900 / month50,000 credits | $0.0362 credits | Only when found |
Methodology
- 01Who is in the test set
The 100 domains of the Company suite: 35 in France, 25 in the United Kingdom, 25 in the United States and 15 elsewhere in Europe, 20 in each of five size bands.
- 02How each provider is asked
Apollo, ContactOut, Coresignal, Hunter and Prospeo return the stack inside their company record, so their Company suite answers are graded as they are, with no second call. Findymail keeps it behind a technology lookup by domain, called once per domain. Forager ran through Clay (Enrich website traffic and tech stack), on its own managed credits, one domain per row, keeping the technologies it holds as active; latency is not measured for it. LeadMagic's technographics endpoint answered "no technology stack" for every domain, its own documentation example included, so it is not graded.
- 03How the ground truth is built
On the run day each domain is opened in a headless browser: home page and four internal pages, scripts executed so tag-manager loads count, and the cookie banner accepted as a visitor would, since consent managers hold trackers back until then (52 domains showed one). Its MX, TXT and NS records are read too. The signals are matched against the open-source webappanalyzer fingerprints, the maintained fork of the Wappalyzer rules. 92 domains loaded without a bot challenge; the others carry no ground truth and only count for coverage.
- 04How a technology is judged
A returned technology is checkable when it maps to a fingerprint in a business category a site or its DNS can show (CMS, analytics, tag managers, marketing automation, advertising, live chat, CRM, e-commerce, payments, cookie consent, email hosting, CDN and hosting, among others) and the crawl saw it on at least three test domains, so that a miss means absent rather than invisible. Detection accuracy is the share of checkable returned technologies seen on the site or in DNS; live stack recall is the share of the business technologies we saw that the provider returned. Back-office tools read from job ads or surveys (Excel, Python, Jira) cannot be confirmed from outside and count in neither.
- 05What a lookup costs
The list price of the request on the central pack of the provider's self-serve price ladder (the middle tier, the upper one when the count is even), times the requests the provider bills, divided by the domains that came back with a stack. For the providers graded from their company record, the request is that company enrichment.
- 06What this does not tell you
A stack seen on the home page and four pages misses tools used only on subdomains, in the app or behind a login, so accuracy is a floor, alike for every provider. How fast a provider reflects a stack change, and how many technologies its catalogue tracks, are not measured.
- 07Same conditions for everyone
Most provider calls go through the same API gateway, with a fresh answer forced on every call; providers it does not carry are called directly on their own API, or through Clay or their own web app where no API access was available, and the method above names them. Latency is measured from the same place for everyone, includes the gateway hop where there is one, and for asynchronous APIs runs until the job completes: comparable between providers, not a vendor's absolute latency.
- 08Grades and overall
Every value is graded against the other providers on the same metric: A for the top fifth, B the upper half, C the lower half, D the bottom fifth. Overall is the weighted mean of a provider's grades on every metric it was measured on, A = 4 to D = 1. Weights: Coverage 10×, Detection accuracy 5×, Latency p50 0.25×, Cost / lookup 3×, every other metric 1×. A provider needs at least 20 attempted entries to be ranked; one that could not run is listed as not measured, never scored as zero, and "-" marks a metric not measured.
Raw responses hold personal data and are not published; the per-provider aggregates behind every number, with the counts they were computed from, are in the repository underruns/2026-09-25/scores/technographic.json. Inputs were checked before the run: people whose name, title and employer their own employer publishes, companies checked against registries and filings. Results on your own data will be lower: they include input errors we deliberately excluded so every provider was tested on the same, known-correct set.
What we measure
Every metric is defined once and applied the same way to every provider, so it compares across providers. The core metrics (coverage, accuracy, latency, pricing, and freshness and API quality where they apply) recur across suites; the rest are specific to this data type.
Questions about the Technographic Data benchmark
Which is the best technographic data provider?
Apollo.io ranks first on the Technographic Data benchmark, with an overall grade of 3.4 B, ahead of AI Ark (3.4 B) and Hunter.io (3.2 B). 10 providers were ranked in the run of 2026-09-25. The overall grade covers every metric of the benchmark, so the leader on a single metric can rank lower.
Which technographic data provider has the highest coverage?
Apollo.io leads on coverage, at 100.0%, ahead of AI Ark at 96.0%. Across the 10 providers ranked, coverage runs from 100.0% to 39.0%. Share of test domains with at least one technology returned.
Which technographic data provider has the highest detection accuracy?
Prospeo leads on detection accuracy, at 79.5%, ahead of Hunter.io at 66.3%. Of the returned technologies a website or its DNS can show, the share seen on the domain on the run day; "-" below 20 checkable technologies.
Which technographic data provider is fastest?
LeadIQ leads on latency p50, at 306ms, ahead of ContactOut at 707ms. Median time to an answer per request, from the same place for every provider (for asynchronous APIs, until the job completes).
Which technographic data provider has the lowest cost per lookup?
AI Ark leads on cost per lookup, at $0.0003, ahead of Hunter.io at $0.0032. List price per domain with a technology list, on the central pack of the self-serve price ladder.
How is the Technographic Data benchmark measured?
Every provider answers the same frozen, verified test set (100 domains · 35 FR / 25 UK / 25 US / 15 other EU · 5 size bands · set v2026-09-25.1) in the same window, graded by live-site and DNS detection (objective). Each value gets a letter grade against the rest of the field, A for the top fifth down to D for the bottom fifth, and the leaderboard ranks providers on the weighted mean of their grades on every metric, coverage weighing most; ties are broken on coverage.
Providers in this suite
Not measured in this run
In this suite, but not ranked this run: no self-serve access, no credits, or fewer than 20 entries run. Not measured is never scored as zero.