# B2BDataBenchmarks: full results

> Independent, reproducible benchmarks of B2B data providers: email, phone, people, company, live profile, intent, jobs and technographic data. Frozen, verified test sets; objective or blind grading; no paid placement. This file holds every measured number of the site in one place: leaderboards with grades, the leader on every metric, the price behind every cost figure and the method of each suite. Run of 2026-09-25. Data under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/); cite B2BDataBenchmarks with the suite page URL and the run date. Short index: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/llms.txt. JSON: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/api/data.json.

## How to read the numbers

- Grades are relative to the field on one metric in one run: A = top fifth of the field on this metric; B = upper half of the field on this metric; C = lower half of the field on this metric; D = bottom fifth of the field on this metric. Ties share a grade. Direction comes from the metric, so a low latency grades like a high match rate.
- Overall is the weighted mean of a provider's grades on every metric it was measured on (A = 4 to D = 1); each suite lists its weights. 3.5 and up reads A, 2.5 B, 1.5 C.
- Every leaderboard is ranked on Overall, so a provider that matches everything but returns poor data does not top it; ties are broken on the headline metric (the first column), then on the name.
- "-" marks a metric the run did not measure for that provider. A provider absent from a leaderboard was not measured on that suite, never scored as zero; it needs at least 20 attempted entries to be ranked.
- 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.
- A gap of a few points between two providers on a set of 50 to 100 entries is within noise.

## Leaders at a glance

7 of 8 suites measured.

| Suite | Status | Leader on the headline metric | Best overall grade | Lowest cost | Fastest |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Email Data | 29 ranked, run 2026-09-25 | Reverse Contact (98.3%) | Surfe 3.9 A; next Findymail 3.6 A | Enrich.so ($0.0040) | Blitz API (297ms) |
| Phone Data | 24 ranked, run 2026-09-25 | Snov.io (91.8%) | FullEnrich 3.6 A; next Snov.io 3.4 B | QuickEnrich ($0.0060) | Blitz API (348ms) |
| People Data | 24 ranked, run 2026-09-25 | Apollo.io (100.0%) | Reverse Contact 3.6 A; next Aviato 3.4 B | Bright Data ($0.0013) | Reverse Contact (177ms) |
| Company Data | 23 ranked, run 2026-09-25 | Apollo.io (100.0%) | Apollo.io 3.7 A; next Wiza 3.4 B | AI Ark ($0.0003) | LeadIQ (306ms) |
| Live Profile Data | 5 ranked, run 2026-09-26 | Reverse Contact (95.0%) | Reverse Contact 3.7 A; next HarvestAPI 3.4 B | Bright Data ($0.0013) | Aviato (3,323ms) |
| Intent Data | not measured yet | - | - | - | - |
| Jobs Data | 6 ranked, run 2026-09-25 | Bright Data (98.3%) | Bright Data, Apollo.io 3.6 A; next HarvestAPI 2.7 B | HarvestAPI ($0.0001) | Blitz API (2,143ms) |
| Technographic Data | 10 ranked, run 2026-09-25 | Apollo.io (100.0%) | Apollo.io, AI Ark 3.4 B; next Hunter.io 3.2 B | AI Ark ($0.0003) | LeadIQ (306ms) |

## Methodology

B2BDataBenchmarks publishes empirical, reproducible benchmarks of B2B data providers: email, phone, people, company, live profile, intent, jobs and technographic data. The rules below apply to every suite.

- **Frozen test sets.** Every suite runs against a frozen, versioned test set (queries, companies or people) drawn before any provider is called. All providers answer the same set within the same time window, through their native APIs, mostly behind one gateway that forces a fresh answer on every call, with each query translated to the provider's own taxonomy as faithfully as its API allows. A provider whose price makes the full set too expensive runs on the first entries of the same set; it needs at least 20 attempted entries to be ranked.
- **Clean, verified inputs by design.** Every test set is built from high-quality inputs that were checked before any provider was called: each person's name, title and employer are published by the employer's own website, and each company's facts come from registries and filings. This is deliberate: an equal benchmark needs equal inputs, and inputs we know to be correct. It also means the numbers here are a ceiling: on real-world data, with typos, stale CRM records, wrong domains and ambiguous names, every provider's match rate and accuracy will be lower. We measure the provider, not the noise in your input.
- **A common core, then suite-specific metrics.** Every suite reports a common core of metrics so providers can be compared across data types: coverage (match rate on the frozen set), accuracy (against ground truth), freshness where the data carries a date, latency p50 (measured through the same gateway for every provider, so it includes that hop and compares providers rather than giving a vendor's absolute latency), pricing per useful result on the central pack of each provider's self-serve price ladder, and API quality (a rubric scored from public material: docs, spec, auth, rate limits, error semantics, SDKs, status page, sandbox and changelog), which the Email and Phone suites leave out. Providers that fetch live at request time carry a “live” badge. Each suite then adds only the metrics that are objective and reproducible for that data type: business-email share for email, mobile coverage for phone, headcount accuracy for company, predictive lift for intent, expired-job removal for jobs, and so on. A metric shown as “-” was not measured in that run.
- **Blind grading and objective truth.** Where a judgment call is needed (do two differently worded job titles name the same role?), grading is blind: the judge sees the record, never the provider. Where objective truth exists (does this email verify? does the profile show the person's current employer?), we grade against it directly, with no judge to argue with. Empty results count against coverage, not accuracy; the two are reported separately.
- **Letter grades.** Every measured value carries a letter, A to D. The letter is relative to the field, never to a target we invented: it says how many providers beat this one on that metric, in that run, with the direction taken from the metric itself, so a low latency grades as well as a high match rate. A is the top fifth of the field, B the rest of the upper half, C the lower half, D the bottom fifth. Ties share a grade. Review ratings are the one exception: they come from third-party platforms rather than from a run of ours, so they are graded against fixed bands (A at 4.6 and above, B from 4.2, C from 3.7, D below). A grade is a reading aid; the number beside it is the measurement. Leaderboards are ranked on the overall grade, the weighted mean of a provider's grades on every metric of the suite, so a provider that matches everything but returns poor data does not top the table; ties are broken on the headline metric.
- **Published aggregates.** Raw provider responses hold personal data, so they are not published. The per-provider aggregates behind every number are, with the counts they were computed from, in the repository under runs/, one scores folder per run. Providers that could not run, or ran on fewer than 20 entries, are listed as not measured, never scored as zero.
- **Review aggregation.** Review pages aggregate what real users say across public platforms (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius) and communities (Reddit, Hacker News). Every claim links to its source, summaries are paraphrased rather than copied, ratings belong to their platforms, and pages carry the date they were collected. Providers can request corrections at any time.
- **Independence.** No paid placement, no affiliate links. The dataset is released under CC BY 4.0. Providers win some suites and lose others; publishing the losses is what makes the wins credible.

## Email Data

- Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/email
- Run: 2026-09-25
- Test set: 60 people · 30 NA / 18 EU / 12 RoW · set v2026-09-25.1
- Grading: two-verifier consensus (objective)

Given a known person and employer, can the provider return a work email, and is it valid? Every returned address is checked by two independent verifiers, so this suite is graded against objective truth rather than a judge.

### Method

1. **Who is in the test set.** 60 professionals whose name, title and employer are published on their own employer's website, checked on 2026-09-25: 30 in North America, 18 in Europe and 12 elsewhere, 15 each at C-level, VP or head, director, and manager or senior IC. The set is frozen before any provider is called, so every provider answers the same 60 questions and we already know who each person is and where they work. On 2026-10-13, every provider still reachable was also asked about ten decoys: invented people at real employers (five in North America, three in Europe, two elsewhere), with a profile URL that does not exist, each checked by a web search for the name and employer. An address returned for a decoy belongs to nobody.
2. **How each provider is asked.** Each provider's email finder receives the person's name and employer web domain, the way a customer would send them. Where the API decides otherwise, we follow it: ContactOut and Blitz API only take a LinkedIn URL, so they ran on the 49 people who have one; Apollo.io, GetLeads, Coresignal and People Data Labs sell the work email inside their person enrichment, so the address comes from that call (Coresignal and People Data Labs take a LinkedIn URL, so on the 49 people who have one). Lusha is its contact search with only the email revealed. FullEnrich (52 people) and BetterContact (55) stopped when their free credits ran out. Wiza ran on the 49 people with a LinkedIn URL through its web app (a list enriched from an uploaded file, the API having no capacity on the day), so its latency is not measured. Snov.io and Forager ran through Clay, on its own managed credits, one column per provider with no waterfall and the test set's own fields as inputs (Forager's work-email finder takes a LinkedIn URL, so on the 49 people who have one); latency is not measured for them. ZoomInfo and Cognism did not answer this set: their match rate comes from a separate test of 4,806 people across Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Americas that recorded only whether an address came back, so their other metrics show "-".
3. **How an address is judged.** Nothing is sent to the people. Every returned address goes to two independent verifiers, MillionVerifier and ZeroBounce. It is valid only when both say valid, invalid when either says invalid, and otherwise catch-all (the domain accepts any address, so nobody can confirm it) or unknown. Match rate counts any address returned; valid email rate, invalid rate and catch-all share split the returned addresses between those verdicts. Business vs personal is read from the domain. A deliverable address can still belong to someone else, so each returned address is also checked against the person's name: it counts for the right person when its local part is built from their first or last name, with initials or a common short form.
4. **What providers say about their own answers.** Some providers flag catch-all domains or rate their confidence. Catch-all detection is the share of the verifiers' catch-all addresses the provider warned about, by a catch-all flag or a rating below its top level; LeadMagic, Datagma and GetLeads label every address valid, so they warn about none. Confidence-score quality is the valid-rate gap between the addresses a provider rates sure and the rest (Hunter, FullEnrich, BetterContact, Icypeas, Coresignal, ContactOut, LeadIQ, RocketReach); a negative gap means its confidence misleads. Findymail, Blitz API, People Data Labs and Reverse Contact return no status per address, so both show "-".
5. **What an email costs.** The list price of one request on the central pack of the provider's self-serve price ladder (the middle tier, the upper one when the count is even; from the public pricing page or the billing page after a free signup, never a sales quote), divided by the valid emails that request yields. A provider that bills every request, a flat-rate plan (spread over 10,000 requests) and an email read off a person enrichment count every request as paid. The Price basis table shows the pack behind each number.
6. **What this does not tell you.** There is no real send, so there is no bounce rate: the invalid rate is its closest proxy. Sixty people separate providers that differ clearly; a gap of a few points between two providers is within noise.

### Metrics

- **Match rate** (headline, breaks ties in the rank; higher is better; weight 10×): Share of test people for which any email is returned.
- **Valid email rate** (core; higher is better; weight 5×): Returned addresses both verifiers mark valid; catch-all and unknown count as not valid.
- **Latency p50** (core; lower is better; weight 0.25×): Median time to an answer per request, from the same place for every provider (for asynchronous APIs, until the job completes).
- **Cost / valid email** (core; lower is better; weight 3×): List price per valid email, on the central pack of the self-serve price ladder.
- **Invalid rate** (suite-specific; lower is better; weight 1×): Share of returned addresses that at least one of the two verifiers marks invalid: the ones that would bounce.
- **Catch-all share** (suite-specific; lower is better; weight 1×): Share of returned addresses on a catch-all domain, which accepts any address, so no verifier can confirm them.
- **Business email** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of valid addresses on the employer's domain rather than a personal mailbox.
- **Right-person rate** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of returned addresses built from the person's own name (first or last name, with initials or a common short form); a generic or someone else's address does not count.
- **Decoy hit rate** (suite-specific; lower is better; weight 1×): Of ten invented people at real employers, the share for which the provider returned an address anyway: nobody owns it, so it is a guess.
- **Catch-all detection** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Of the returned addresses the verifiers find on a catch-all domain, the share the provider warned about: flagged as catch-all or rated below its top confidence. A provider that labels every address valid warns about none. "-" when its answer carries no status per address.
- **Confidence-score quality** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Valid-rate gap, in points, between the addresses the provider rates sure and those it rates less sure; negative when its confidence misleads. "-" when it exposes a single level.
- **Geographic coverage** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Countries with at least one valid email returned.

### Leaders

- **Overall** (weighted mean of grades): Surfe 3.9 A; next Findymail 3.6 A
- **Match rate**: Reverse Contact 98.3%; next FullEnrich 96.2% (29 measured)
- **Valid email rate**: Enrich.so 75.6%; next Icypeas 68.3% (27 measured)
- **Latency p50**: Blitz API 297ms; next People Data Labs 672ms (23 measured)
- **Cost / valid email**: Enrich.so $0.0040; next AI Ark $0.0045 (24 measured)
- **Invalid rate**: FullEnrich, Icypeas, Wiza, AI Ark, Enrich.so, LeadMagic, Blitz API, RocketReach, GetLeads, QuickEnrich, Forager 0.0% (tied); next Reverse Contact 1.7% (27 measured)
- **Catch-all share**: ContactOut 20.6%; next Snov.io 23.1% (27 measured)
- **Business email**: Surfe, Findymail, Apollo.io, FullEnrich, BetterContact, Icypeas, Wiza, Hunter.io, AI Ark, Enrich.so, LeadMagic, Datagma, ContactOut, Blitz API, Fiber AI, LeadIQ, Lusha, Aviato, People Data Labs, RocketReach, GetLeads, Prospeo, QuickEnrich, Snov.io, Coresignal, Forager 100.0% (tied); next Reverse Contact 97.4% (27 measured)
- **Right-person rate**: FullEnrich, Icypeas, Wiza, Hunter.io, AI Ark, Datagma, Blitz API, Aviato, People Data Labs, GetLeads, Prospeo, QuickEnrich, Coresignal, Forager 100.0% (tied); next Reverse Contact 98.3% (27 measured)
- **Decoy hit rate**: Apollo.io, Wiza, AI Ark, Datagma, ContactOut, Fiber AI, LeadIQ, Lusha, Aviato, People Data Labs, RocketReach, GetLeads, Prospeo, QuickEnrich, Coresignal 0.0% (tied); next Icypeas 10.0% (22 measured)
- **Catch-all detection**: Apollo.io, FullEnrich, Hunter.io, Enrich.so 100.0% (tied); next BetterContact 81.3% (17 measured)
- **Confidence-score quality**: Hunter.io +100.0 pts; next FullEnrich +94.4 pts (9 measured)
- **Geographic coverage**: Reverse Contact 11; next Surfe 10 (27 measured)

### Leaderboard

Ranked on Overall, the weighted mean grade (A = 4 to D = 1), ties broken on Match rate. Each value is followed by its grade.

| Rank | Provider | Overall | Match rate | Valid email rate | Latency p50 | Cost / valid email | Invalid rate | Catch-all share | Business email | Right-person rate | Decoy hit rate | Catch-all detection | Confidence-score quality | Geographic coverage |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Surfe | 3.9 A | 90.0% A | 66.7% A | - | - | 1.9% B | 29.6% A | 100.0% A | 98.1% C | - | - | - | 10 A |
| 2 | Findymail | 3.6 A | 86.7% A | 67.3% A | 1,727ms B | $0.020 B | 1.9% B | 28.8% A | 100.0% A | 98.1% C | 20.0% D | - | - | 9 B |
| 3 | Apollo.io | 3.4 B | 90.0% A | 64.8% B | 1,302ms B | $0.043 B | 1.9% B | 31.5% B | 100.0% A | 94.4% D | 0.0% A | 100.0% A | - | 9 B |
| 4 | FullEnrich | 3.3 B | 96.2% A | 66.0% B | 40,638ms D | $0.077 C | 0.0% A | 32.0% B | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 20.0% D | 100.0% A | +94.4 pts A | 8 C |
| 5 | Reverse Contact | 3.2 B | 98.3% A | 66.1% B | 12,854ms D | $0.041 B | 1.7% B | 30.5% B | 97.4% D | 98.3% C | 20.0% D | - | - | 11 A |
| 6 | BetterContact | 3.2 B | 90.9% A | 66.0% B | 35,589ms D | $0.060 C | 2.0% C | 32.0% B | 100.0% A | 98.0% C | - | 81.3% B | +78.7 pts B | 9 B |
| 7 | Icypeas | 3.0 B | 68.3% C | 68.3% A | 6,284ms C | $0.013 A | 0.0% A | 31.7% B | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 10.0% C | 46.2% B | +53.8 pts D | 10 A |
| 8 | Wiza | 2.9 B | 81.6% B | 65.0% B | - | $0.077 C | 0.0% A | 32.5% C | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 0.0% A | 0.0% D | - | 9 B |
| 9 | Hunter.io | 2.9 B | 75.0% B | 62.2% C | 2,252ms B | $0.024 B | 13.3% D | 24.4% A | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 10.0% C | 100.0% A | +100.0 pts A | 10 A |
| 10 | AI Ark | 2.9 B | 69.4% B | 64.7% C | 3,315ms C | $0.0045 A | 0.0% A | 35.3% D | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 0.0% A | 16.7% C | +68.8 pts B | 8 C |
| 11 | Enrich.so | 2.9 B | 68.3% C | 75.6% A | 3,302ms C | $0.0040 A | 0.0% A | 24.4% A | 100.0% A | 95.1% D | 20.0% D | 100.0% A | +62.5 pts C | 10 A |
| 12 | LeadMagic | 2.8 B | 60.0% C | 66.7% A | 6,502ms C | $0.015 A | 0.0% A | 33.3% C | 100.0% A | 97.2% C | 20.0% D | 0.0% D | - | 9 B |
| 13 | Datagma | 2.7 B | 70.0% B | 61.9% C | 7,321ms D | $0.021 B | 2.4% C | 35.7% D | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 0.0% A | 0.0% D | - | 8 C |
| 14 | ContactOut | 2.7 B | 69.4% B | 64.7% C | 1,024ms B | - | 11.8% D | 20.6% A | 100.0% A | 94.1% D | 0.0% A | 71.4% B | +63.5 pts B | 9 B |
| 15 | Blitz API | 2.7 B | 57.1% C | 67.9% A | 297ms A | $0.154 C | 0.0% A | 32.1% C | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | - | - | - | 7 C |
| 16 | Fiber AI | 2.6 B | 77.6% B | 63.2% C | 17,360ms D | $0.057 C | 2.6% C | 31.6% B | 100.0% A | 97.4% C | 0.0% A | - | - | 8 C |
| 17 | LeadIQ | 2.5 B | 78.3% B | 61.7% C | 682ms A | $0.074 C | 2.1% C | 34.0% C | 100.0% A | 95.7% D | 0.0% A | 0.0% D | +63.0 pts C | 8 C |
| 18 | Lusha | 2.5 B | 71.7% B | 62.8% C | 847ms A | $0.486 D | 4.7% C | 30.2% B | 100.0% A | 97.7% C | 0.0% A | - | - | 6 D |
| 19 | Aviato | 2.4 C | 75.5% B | 35.1% D | 964ms B | - | 24.3% D | 35.1% C | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 0.0% A | - | - | 6 D |
| 20 | People Data Labs | 2.3 C | 69.4% B | 52.9% D | 672ms A | $0.654 D | 11.8% D | 35.3% D | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 0.0% A | - | - | 9 B |
| 21 | RocketReach | 2.3 C | 63.3% C | 65.8% B | 6,516ms C | $0.480 D | 0.0% A | 31.6% B | 100.0% A | 94.7% D | 0.0% A | 0.0% D | - | 7 C |
| 22 | GetLeads | 2.2 C | 46.7% D | 67.9% A | 3,441ms C | $0.157 C | 0.0% A | 32.1% C | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 0.0% A | 0.0% D | - | 6 D |
| 23 | Prospeo | 2.1 C | 61.7% C | 54.1% D | 1,231ms B | $0.037 B | 2.7% C | 40.5% D | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 0.0% A | 60.0% B | - | 5 D |
| 24 | Cognism | 2.0 C | 66.1% C | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 25 | QuickEnrich | 1.9 C | 53.3% D | 53.1% D | 2,641ms B | $0.0075 A | 0.0% A | 43.8% D | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 0.0% A | - | - | 7 C |
| 26 | Snov.io | 1.8 C | 43.3% D | 61.5% C | - | $0.015 B | 11.5% D | 23.1% A | 100.0% A | 92.3% D | - | 66.7% B | - | 8 C |
| 27 | Coresignal | 1.4 D | 55.1% D | 37.0% D | 928ms A | $0.654 D | 25.9% D | 33.3% C | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 0.0% A | 11.1% C | -16.7 pts D | 3 D |
| 28 | Forager | 1.4 D | 4.1% D | 50.0% D | - | $0.190 D | 0.0% A | 50.0% D | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | - | - | - | 1 D |
| 29 | ZoomInfo | 1.0 D | 52.3% D | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

### Price basis

The cost metric is the list price of one request on the central pack of each provider's self-serve price ladder, spread over the useful results that request yields.

| Provider | Pack | Position | Pack price | Volume | Per request | Credits / request | Billed | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Findymail | Business Plus | tier 4 of 6 | $399 / month | 30,000 credits | $0.013 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://www.findymail.com/pricing/ |
| Apollo.io | Professional (1 seat) | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 4,000 credits | $0.025 | 1 credit | Every request | https://www.apollo.io/pricing |
| FullEnrich | Pro 5K | tier 6 of 11 | $255 / month | 5,000 credits | $0.051 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://fullenrich.com/pricing |
| Reverse Contact | Pay-as-you-go 200,000 credits | tier 8 of 14 | $1,800, one-time | 200,000 credits | $0.027 | 3 credits | Only when found | https://www.reversecontact.com/pricing |
| BetterContact | Pro 10,000 | tier 5 of 8 | $399 / month | 10,000 credits | $0.040 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://bettercontact.rocks/pricing/ |
| Icypeas | Hypergrowth 50K | tier 6 of 11 | $445 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.009 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://icypeas.com/pricing |
| Wiza | API credits 101,000 | tier 2 of 3 | $2,525, one-time | 101,000 credits | $0.050 | 2 credits | Only when found | https://wiza.co/app/settings/api |
| Hunter.io | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $149 / month | 10,000 credits | $0.015 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://hunter.io/pricing |
| AI Ark | Usage Based 300,000 credits | tier 7 of 12 | $879 / month | 300,000 credits | $0.003 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://ai-ark.com/pricing |
| Enrich.so | Scale | tier 2 of 3 | $149 / month | 500,000 credits | $0.003 | 10 credits | Only when found | https://www.enrich.so/pricing |
| LeadMagic | Professional | tier 3 of 4 | $499 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.010 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://leadmagic.io/pricing |
| Datagma | Popular | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 7,500 credits | $0.013 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://datagma.com/en/pricing |
| Blitz API | Full | tier 2 of 2 | $599 / month | flat rate, spread over 10,000 requests | $0.060 | - | Every request | https://www.blitz-api.ai/pricing |
| Fiber AI | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $900 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.036 | 2 credits | Only when found | https://www.fiber.ai/pricing.md |
| LeadIQ | Pro 2,800 credits | tier 27 of 53 | $127.12 / month | 2,800 credits | $0.045 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://leadiq.com/pricing |
| Lusha | Premium 5,200 credits | tier 25 of 49 | $568.65 / month | 5,200 credits | $0.219 | 2 credits | Every request | https://www.lusha.com/pricing/ |
| People Data Labs | Published range $0.20-$0.28 per record | midpoint, per-volume grid not readable | Self-serve | priced per record | $0.240 | - | Every request | https://www.peopledatalabs.com/blog/post/understanding-pricing-at-pdl |
| RocketReach | Pro + Phone | tier 2 of 3 | $79 / month | 250 credits | $0.316 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://rocketreach.co/pricing |
| GetLeads | Unlimited | tier 2 of 2 | $497 / month | flat rate, spread over 10,000 requests | $0.050 | - | Every request | https://www.getleads.io/pricing |
| Prospeo | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 5,000 credits | $0.020 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://prospeo.io/pricing |
| QuickEnrich | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 25,000 credits | $0.004 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://quickenrich.io/pricing |
| Snov.io | Pro M | tier 3 of 5 | $189 / month | 20,000 credits | $0.009 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://snov.io/pricing |
| Coresignal | Growth | tier 4 of 7 | $1,000 / month | 150,000 credits | $0.133 | 20 credits | Every request | https://coresignal.com/pricing/ |
| Forager | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $100 / month | 5,250 credits | $0.095 | 5 credits | Only when found | https://www.forager.ai/pricing |

- Apollo.io: priced as the person enrichment the email is read from
- People Data Labs: priced as the person enrichment the email is read from
- GetLeads: priced as the person enrichment the email is read from
- Coresignal: priced as the person enrichment the email is read from

No public self-serve price, so no cost metric: Surfe, ContactOut, Aviato, Cognism, ZoomInfo.

### Not measured in this run

Crustdata, HarvestAPI.

## Phone Data

- Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/phone
- Run: 2026-09-25
- Test set: 49 people with a LinkedIn URL · set v2026-09-25.1
- Grading: carrier lookup, Trestle (objective)

Given a known person, does the provider return a phone number, is it a mobile, and is it valid and active? Every returned number is checked by a carrier lookup, so this suite is graded against objective truth rather than a judge.

### Method

1. **Who is in the test set.** The 49 people of the email set who have a confirmed LinkedIn URL.
2. **How each provider is asked.** Each provider's phone-enrichment endpoint receives the LinkedIn URL. People Data Labs and GetLeads return the phone inside the person enrichment the people suite already calls, so that answer is read here rather than bought twice. Blitz API documents its phone coverage as United States only; it gets the whole set like everyone else. Wiza ran through its web app (a list enriched from an uploaded file, the API having no capacity on the day), so its latency is not measured. Forager, FullEnrich, BetterContact and Datagma ran through Clay, on its own managed credits, one column per provider with no waterfall and the test set's own fields as inputs; latency is not measured for them. ZoomInfo and Cognism did not answer this set: their match rate is the share of a separate test of 4,806 people across Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Americas for which a mobile number came back, the only thing that test recorded, so their other metrics show "-".
3. **How a number is judged.** Every returned number goes to Trestle phone intelligence and lands in one of three bins: valid and reachable (valid, activity score of 50 or more), low activity (valid, score under 50) or disconnected (not valid). Mobile vs landline or VoIP comes from Trestle's line type, and the country from Trestle compared with the person's country. No provider returned the same number for two different people.
4. **What a mobile costs.** The list price of one request on the central pack of the provider's self-serve price ladder (the middle tier, the upper one when the count is even), divided by the valid mobiles returned. A phone read off a person enrichment is priced as that request, every request billed. The Price basis table shows the pack behind each number.
5. **Who owns the number.** No number is called. Whether a number belongs to the person is checked against Trestle Real Contact's name match on the (name, number) pair; outside North America it mostly cannot tell, and those numbers are left out of the right-person rate rather than counted either way. Whether the owner uses WhatsApp or iMessage is not measured.

### Metrics

- **Match rate** (headline, breaks ties in the rank; higher is better; weight 10×): Share of test people for which a number is returned.
- **Valid / reachable rate** (core; higher is better; weight 5×): Returned numbers the carrier lookup finds valid, with an activity score of 50 or more.
- **Latency p50** (core; lower is better; weight 0.25×): Median time to an answer per request, from the same place for every provider (for asynchronous APIs, until the job completes).
- **Cost / mobile number** (core; lower is better; weight 3×): List price per valid mobile, on the central pack of the self-serve price ladder.
- **Right-person rate** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Of the returned numbers Trestle can tie to a name, the share tied to the person asked for. Mostly North American numbers; "-" below 5 attributed numbers.
- **Mobile coverage** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of test people for which a valid mobile number is returned.
- **Disconnected rate** (suite-specific; lower is better; weight 1×): Returned numbers the carrier lookup finds invalid or not in service.
- **Low-activity share** (suite-specific; lower is better; weight 1×): Returned numbers that exist but show little sign of recent use (activity score under 50): a call will rarely be answered.
- **Landline / mobile classification** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Provider's line-type label agrees with the carrier lookup. "-" when the provider labels fewer than 5 numbers.
- **Country accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Number country matches the person's verified country.
- **Geographic coverage** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Countries with at least one valid number returned.

### Leaders

- **Overall** (weighted mean of grades): FullEnrich 3.6 A; next Snov.io 3.4 B
- **Match rate**: Snov.io 91.8%; next BetterContact 87.8% (24 measured)
- **Valid / reachable rate**: Findymail 100.0%; next FullEnrich 97.6% (22 measured)
- **Latency p50**: Blitz API 348ms; next ContactOut 490ms (16 measured)
- **Cost / mobile number**: QuickEnrich $0.0060; next AI Ark $0.017 (20 measured)
- **Right-person rate**: FullEnrich, Datagma, Forager, QuickEnrich 100.0% (tied); next Snov.io 96.2% (21 measured)
- **Mobile coverage**: FullEnrich 81.6%; next Snov.io 79.6% (22 measured)
- **Disconnected rate**: FullEnrich, Snov.io, BetterContact, RocketReach, Lusha, LeadIQ, Findymail, Wiza, Datagma, Reverse Contact, AI Ark, People Data Labs, LeadMagic, Enrich.so, Fiber AI, Forager, GetLeads, Blitz API, Aviato 0.0% (tied); next Prospeo 2.9% (22 measured)
- **Low-activity share**: Findymail 0.0%; next FullEnrich 2.4% (22 measured)
- **Landline / mobile classification**: RocketReach, Lusha, Findymail, Datagma, People Data Labs, Fiber AI, GetLeads 100.0% (tied); next Wiza 97.4% (14 measured)
- **Country accuracy**: GetLeads, Blitz API, Aviato 100.0% (tied); next FullEnrich 92.7% (22 measured)
- **Geographic coverage**: Lusha 10; next FullEnrich 9 (22 measured)

### Leaderboard

Ranked on Overall, the weighted mean grade (A = 4 to D = 1), ties broken on Match rate. Each value is followed by its grade.

| Rank | Provider | Overall | Match rate | Valid / reachable rate | Latency p50 | Cost / mobile number | Right-person rate | Mobile coverage | Disconnected rate | Low-activity share | Landline / mobile classification | Country accuracy | Geographic coverage |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | FullEnrich | 3.6 A | 83.7% A | 97.6% A | - | $0.523 D | 100.0% A | 81.6% A | 0.0% A | 2.4% A | - | 92.7% A | 9 A |
| 2 | Snov.io | 3.4 B | 91.8% A | 86.7% B | - | $0.508 C | 96.2% A | 79.6% A | 0.0% A | 13.3% B | - | 82.2% D | 9 A |
| 3 | BetterContact | 3.3 B | 87.8% A | 88.4% B | - | $0.452 C | 92.3% B | 77.6% A | 0.0% A | 11.6% B | - | 83.7% D | 9 A |
| 4 | RocketReach | 3.3 B | 71.4% B | 94.3% A | 6,290ms D | $0.211 B | 90.9% B | 57.1% B | 0.0% A | 5.7% A | 100.0% A | 85.7% C | 9 A |
| 5 | Cognism | 3.0 B | 73.5% B | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 6 | Lusha | 2.9 B | 81.6% B | 87.5% B | 739ms B | $0.974 D | 90.5% B | 67.3% A | 0.0% A | 12.5% B | 100.0% A | 85.0% C | 10 A |
| 7 | LeadIQ | 2.8 B | 83.7% A | 82.9% C | 680ms B | $0.600 D | 78.3% D | 63.3% A | 0.0% A | 17.1% C | 92.5% D | 80.5% D | 8 B |
| 8 | Findymail | 2.8 B | 51.0% C | 100.0% A | 1,910ms C | $0.145 B | 95.5% B | 46.9% C | 0.0% A | 0.0% A | 100.0% A | 84.0% C | 6 C |
| 9 | ContactOut | 2.7 B | 85.7% A | 73.8% D | 490ms A | - | 88.5% C | 55.1% B | 7.1% D | 19.0% D | - | 83.3% D | 9 A |
| 10 | Wiza | 2.7 B | 77.6% B | 81.6% C | - | $0.158 B | 84.0% C | 61.2% B | 0.0% A | 18.4% C | 97.4% C | 86.8% B | 7 B |
| 11 | Prospeo | 2.7 B | 71.4% B | 85.7% B | 570ms A | $0.231 C | 88.0% C | 61.2% B | 2.9% D | 11.4% B | 97.1% C | 88.6% B | 8 B |
| 12 | Datagma | 2.7 B | 65.3% B | 84.4% C | - | $0.469 C | 100.0% A | 55.1% B | 0.0% A | 15.6% C | 100.0% A | 84.4% C | 8 B |
| 13 | Reverse Contact | 2.6 B | 77.6% B | 81.6% C | 18,782ms D | $0.228 C | 84.0% C | 61.2% B | 0.0% A | 18.4% C | 97.4% C | 86.8% B | 7 B |
| 14 | AI Ark | 2.6 B | 51.0% C | 88.0% B | 1,006ms B | $0.017 A | 95.2% B | 44.9% C | 0.0% A | 12.0% B | 96.0% C | 92.0% A | 4 D |
| 15 | People Data Labs | 2.5 B | 59.2% C | 89.7% A | 672ms B | $0.511 D | 82.6% C | 46.9% C | 0.0% A | 10.3% A | 100.0% A | 79.3% D | 7 B |
| 16 | LeadMagic | 2.5 B | 57.1% C | 85.7% B | 1,803ms C | $0.064 A | 80.0% D | 44.9% C | 0.0% A | 14.3% B | 89.3% D | 85.7% C | 5 C |
| 17 | Enrich.so | 2.3 C | 46.9% C | 82.6% C | 1,277ms C | $0.190 B | 89.5% B | 36.7% C | 0.0% A | 17.4% C | - | 91.3% B | 5 C |
| 18 | Fiber AI | 2.3 C | 46.9% C | 78.3% C | 4,967ms D | $0.069 A | 73.7% D | 36.7% C | 0.0% A | 21.7% D | 100.0% A | 91.3% B | 5 C |
| 19 | Forager | 2.3 C | 42.9% D | 90.5% A | - | $0.316 C | 100.0% A | 38.8% C | 0.0% A | 9.5% A | - | 90.5% B | 7 B |
| 20 | ZoomInfo | 2.0 C | 60.2% C | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 21 | GetLeads | 1.6 C | 36.7% D | 72.2% D | 3,420ms C | $0.187 B | 80.0% D | 26.5% D | 0.0% A | 27.8% D | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 4 D |
| 22 | QuickEnrich | 1.6 C | 24.5% D | 75.0% D | 2,619ms C | $0.0060 A | 100.0% A | 16.3% D | 8.3% D | 16.7% C | 91.7% D | 91.7% B | 3 D |
| 23 | Blitz API | 1.5 C | 34.7% D | 76.5% D | 348ms A | $0.226 B | 78.6% D | 26.5% D | 0.0% A | 23.5% D | - | 100.0% A | 4 D |
| 24 | Aviato | 1.3 D | 12.2% D | 66.7% D | 509ms A | - | - | 8.2% D | 0.0% A | 33.3% D | - | 100.0% A | 4 D |

### Price basis

The cost metric is the list price of one request on the central pack of each provider's self-serve price ladder, spread over the useful results that request yields.

| Provider | Pack | Position | Pack price | Volume | Per request | Credits / request | Billed | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| FullEnrich | Pro 5K | tier 6 of 11 | $255 / month | 5,000 credits | $0.510 | 10 credits | Only when found | https://fullenrich.com/pricing |
| Snov.io | 25K token pack | tier 3 of 4 | $500, one-time | 25,000 credits | $0.440 | 22 credits | Only when found | https://snov.io/pricing |
| BetterContact | Pro 10,000 | tier 5 of 8 | $399 / month | 10,000 credits | $0.399 | 10 credits | Only when found | https://bettercontact.rocks/pricing/ |
| RocketReach | Ultimate + Phone | tier 2 of 2 | $169 / month | 1,000 credits | $0.169 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://rocketreach.co/pricing |
| Lusha | Premium 5,200 credits | tier 25 of 49 | $568.65 / month | 5,200 credits | $0.656 | 6 credits | Every request | https://www.lusha.com/pricing/ |
| LeadIQ | Pro 2,800 credits | tier 27 of 53 | $127.12 / month | 2,800 credits | $0.454 | 10 credits | Only when found | https://leadiq.com/pricing |
| Findymail | Business Plus | tier 4 of 6 | $399 / month | 30,000 credits | $0.133 | 10 credits | Only when found | https://www.findymail.com/pricing/ |
| Wiza | API credits 101,000 | tier 2 of 3 | $2,525, one-time | 101,000 credits | $0.125 | 5 credits | Only when found | https://wiza.co/app/settings/api |
| Prospeo | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 5,000 credits | $0.198 | 10 credits | Only when found | https://prospeo.io/pricing |
| Datagma | Popular | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 7,500 credits | $0.396 | 30 credits | Only when found | https://datagma.com/en/pricing |
| Reverse Contact | Pay-as-you-go 200,000 credits | tier 8 of 14 | $1,800, one-time | 200,000 credits | $0.180 | 20 credits | Only when found | https://www.reversecontact.com/pricing |
| AI Ark | Usage Based 300,000 credits | tier 7 of 12 | $879 / month | 300,000 credits | $0.015 | 5 credits | Only when found | https://ai-ark.com/pricing |
| People Data Labs | Published range $0.20-$0.28 per record | midpoint, per-volume grid not readable | Self-serve | priced per record | $0.240 | - | Every request | https://www.peopledatalabs.com/blog/post/understanding-pricing-at-pdl |
| LeadMagic | Professional | tier 3 of 4 | $499 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.050 | 5 credits | Only when found | https://leadmagic.io/pricing |
| Enrich.so | Scale | tier 2 of 3 | $149 / month | 500,000 credits | $0.149 | 500 credits | Only when found | https://www.enrich.so/pricing |
| Fiber AI | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $900 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.054 | 3 credits | Only when found | https://www.fiber.ai/pricing.md |
| Forager | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $100 / month | 5,250 credits | $0.286 | 15 credits | Only when found | https://www.forager.ai/pricing |
| GetLeads | Unlimited | tier 2 of 2 | $497 / month | flat rate, spread over 10,000 requests | $0.050 | - | Every request | https://www.getleads.io/pricing |
| QuickEnrich | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 25,000 credits | $0.004 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://quickenrich.io/pricing |
| Blitz API | Full | tier 1 of 1 | $599 / month | flat rate, spread over 10,000 requests | $0.060 | - | Every request | https://www.blitz-api.ai/pricing |

- People Data Labs: priced as the person enrichment the phone is read from
- GetLeads: priced as the person enrichment the phone is read from

No public self-serve price, so no cost metric: Cognism, ContactOut, ZoomInfo, Aviato.

### Not measured in this run

Apollo.io, Crustdata, Surfe.

## People Data

- Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/people
- Run: 2026-09-25
- Test set: 60 people · 30 NA / 18 EU / 12 RoW · set v2026-09-25.1
- Grading: employer-published record + blind LLM judge on titles

How accurately does a provider identify a person, their current title, employer and location, and how complete are their work history and education? Profile enrichment is scored here; the People Search sub-report covers role + geo search precision.

### Method

1. **Who is in the test set.** The same 60 people as the email suite, whose name, title and employer are published on their own employer's website.
2. **How each provider is asked.** Endpoints that need a LinkedIn URL receive it (49 people have one); Apollo.io and GetLeads receive name and employer domain instead. Lusha returns the whole profile with the phone it reveals, so its profile is read off the phone-suite call rather than bought twice. Reverse Contact is asked on its indexed profile endpoint, not its live one. Crustdata is asked for its base profile (profile, experience and education), without the paid contact add-ons. Wiza ran through its web app (a list enriched from an uploaded file), which returns name, title, employer and country but no work history, and gives no latency. Bright Data is its LinkedIn Profiles dataset, the public view of the profile: it rarely carries the current title or the past roles. Forager and Snov.io ran through Clay, on its own managed credits, one column per provider with no waterfall and the test set's own fields as inputs; latency is not measured for them. Two checks followed on 2026-10-13, asked of every provider still reachable by API that day: the ten decoys of the email suite (invented people, a profile URL that does not exist), and the 52 movers of the Live Profile suite, by profile URL only, since a mover's employer domain is the answer under test. Apollo.io and Diffbot took the URL in place of name and domain for the movers; Coresignal, People Data Labs and Crustdata, priced far above the rest, ran on 20 of them (10 in North America, 5 in Europe, 5 elsewhere).
3. **How a profile is judged.** Identity counts when the returned profile names the right person; employer and country are checked against the employer-published record. Titles differ in language and wording, so each returned title is judged blind for "same role": the judge sees the two titles, never the provider. Work history, education, skills and profile URL are counted from the record. Seniority labels are mapped onto the four levels of the test set; function labels are not scored, their taxonomies are too far apart to compare. Providers marked live fetch the profile at request time rather than from a cached index. Move detection counts a mover when the returned current employer is the announced new one; a profile not returned counts as a miss. Any profile returned for a decoy counts in the decoy hit rate.
4. **What a profile costs.** The list price of one request on the central pack of the provider's self-serve price ladder (the middle tier, the upper one when the count is even), divided by the match rate when the provider bills every request. The Price basis table shows the pack behind each number.

### Metrics

- **Profile match rate** (headline, breaks ties in the rank; higher is better; weight 10×): Share of test people for which a profile is returned.
- **Identity accuracy** (core; higher is better; weight 5×): Returned profile is the right person, with no homonyms or stale profiles.
- **Latency p50** (core; lower is better; weight 0.25×): Median time to an answer per request, from the same place for every provider (for asynchronous APIs, until the job completes).
- **Price / matched profile** (core; lower is better; weight 3×): List price per matched profile, on the central pack of the self-serve price ladder.
- **Current employer accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Current employer present and correct.
- **Move detection** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Of people whose move to a new employer was announced between July and September 2026, the share returned with the new employer as current.
- **Decoy hit rate** (suite-specific; lower is better; weight 1×): Of ten invented people (a real employer, a profile URL that does not exist), the share for which the provider returned a profile anyway.
- **Job title accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Current title judged the same role as the verified one.
- **Seniority label accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Provider's seniority label maps to the verified level (C-level, VP or head, director, manager or individual contributor). "-" when it gives no label or a coarser scale.
- **Location accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Country / region matches the verified record.
- **Work history completeness** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Average prior roles returned.
- **Education completeness** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of records with at least one school and degree.
- **Skills present** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of records with a populated skills list.
- **Social / profile URLs** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of records with at least one profile URL.
- **Coverage by geo / function / seniority** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Lowest match rate across the stratification cells.

### Leaders

- **Overall** (weighted mean of grades): Reverse Contact 3.6 A; next Aviato 3.4 B
- **Profile match rate**: Apollo.io 100.0%; next Reverse Contact 98.0% (24 measured)
- **Identity accuracy**: Prospeo, Apollo.io, Icypeas, Diffbot, Hunter.io, Snov.io, Enrich.so, LeadMagic, GetLeads 100.0% (tied); next Reverse Contact 97.9% (24 measured)
- **Latency p50**: Reverse Contact 177ms; next Blitz API 294ms (21 measured)
- **Price / matched profile**: Bright Data $0.0013; next AI Ark $0.0015 (21 measured)
- **Current employer accuracy**: ContactOut 97.8%; next GetLeads 97.5% (24 measured)
- **Move detection**: Coresignal 100.0%; next Reverse Contact 96.2% (16 measured)
- **Decoy hit rate**: Reverse Contact, Aviato, Prospeo, Coresignal, AI Ark, Crustdata, Fiber AI, ContactOut, Icypeas, People Data Labs, Hunter.io, Enrich.so, Bright Data, LeadMagic, GetLeads, Datagma 0.0% (tied); next Diffbot 20.0% (18 measured)
- **Job title accuracy**: Wiza 89.6%; next Icypeas 87.8% (24 measured)
- **Seniority label accuracy**: Apollo.io 85.7%; next Coresignal 82.1% (10 measured)
- **Location accuracy**: Hunter.io 100.0%; next Snov.io 97.6% (24 measured)
- **Work history completeness**: Forager 8.6; next ContactOut 8.2 (19 measured)
- **Education completeness**: Reverse Contact, Aviato, AI Ark, Forager, Crustdata, Fiber AI, ContactOut, Icypeas, Blitz API 100.0% (tied); next RocketReach 97.8% (24 measured)
- **Skills present**: Coresignal 95.8%; next AI Ark 91.5% (24 measured)
- **Social / profile URLs**: Reverse Contact, Aviato, Prospeo, Coresignal, AI Ark, Wiza, Forager, Crustdata, Fiber AI, ContactOut, Icypeas, Hunter.io, Blitz API, Snov.io, Enrich.so, RocketReach, Bright Data, LeadMagic, GetLeads, Lusha, Datagma 100.0% (tied); next People Data Labs 95.7% (24 measured)
- **Coverage by geo / function / seniority**: Apollo.io 100.0%; next Reverse Contact 87.5% (24 measured)

### Leaderboard

Ranked on Overall, the weighted mean grade (A = 4 to D = 1), ties broken on Profile match rate. Each value is followed by its grade.

| Rank | Provider | Overall | Profile match rate | Identity accuracy | Latency p50 | Price / matched profile | Current employer accuracy | Move detection | Decoy hit rate | Job title accuracy | Seniority label accuracy | Location accuracy | Work history completeness | Education completeness | Skills present | Social / profile URLs | Coverage by geo / function / seniority |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Reverse Contact | 3.6 A | 98.0% A | 97.9% C | 177ms A | $0.0090 A | 93.8% B | 96.2% A | 0.0% A | 85.4% B | - | 95.8% A | 7.9 A | 100.0% A | 89.6% A | 100.0% A | 87.5% A |
| 2 | Aviato | 3.4 B | 98.0% A | 97.9% C | 727ms A | - | 85.4% C | 88.5% B | 0.0% A | 81.3% B | - | 87.5% C | 7.8 A | 100.0% A | 89.6% A | 100.0% A | 85.7% A |
| 3 | Prospeo | 3.2 B | 98.0% A | 100.0% A | 1,278ms B | $0.020 B | 81.3% D | 7.7% D | 0.0% A | 56.3% C | 65.1% C | 95.8% A | 6.3 C | 0.0% D | 0.0% D | 100.0% A | 83.3% B |
| 4 | Apollo.io | 3.1 B | 100.0% A | 100.0% A | 1,303ms C | $0.025 C | 95.0% B | 88.5% B | 100.0% D | 71.7% C | 85.7% A | 88.3% C | 6.7 C | 0.0% D | 0.0% D | 81.7% D | 100.0% A |
| 5 | Coresignal | 3.1 B | 98.0% A | 97.9% C | 928ms B | $0.133 D | 93.8% B | 100.0% A | 0.0% A | 77.1% C | 82.1% A | 95.8% A | 7.0 C | 87.5% C | 95.8% A | 100.0% A | 83.3% B |
| 6 | AI Ark | 3.1 B | 95.9% B | 97.9% C | 1,469ms C | $0.0015 A | 95.7% A | 69.2% C | 0.0% A | 87.2% A | 80.4% B | 95.7% B | 7.7 B | 100.0% A | 91.5% A | 100.0% A | 83.3% B |
| 7 | Wiza | 3.0 B | 98.0% A | 97.9% C | - | $0.025 C | 95.8% A | - | - | 89.6% A | - | 58.3% D | - | 0.0% D | 0.0% D | 100.0% A | 85.7% A |
| 8 | Forager | 2.9 B | 95.9% B | 97.9% C | - | $0.020 B | 91.5% C | - | - | 85.1% B | - | 95.7% B | 8.6 A | 100.0% A | 91.5% A | 100.0% A | 83.3% B |
| 9 | Crustdata | 2.8 B | 95.9% B | 97.9% C | 1,046ms B | - | 91.5% C | 85.0% B | 0.0% A | 87.2% A | 80.4% B | 87.2% C | 7.5 B | 100.0% A | 0.0% D | 100.0% A | 83.3% B |
| 10 | Fiber AI | 2.8 B | 95.9% B | 97.9% C | 1,136ms B | $0.036 C | 89.4% C | 94.2% A | 0.0% A | 78.7% C | 20.5% D | 95.7% B | 7.8 A | 100.0% A | 57.4% B | 100.0% A | 83.3% B |
| 11 | ContactOut | 2.7 B | 91.8% C | 97.8% C | 898ms B | - | 97.8% A | 75.0% B | 0.0% A | 86.7% A | 81.6% B | 95.6% B | 8.2 A | 100.0% A | 91.1% A | 100.0% A | 80.0% B |
| 12 | Icypeas | 2.4 C | 83.7% D | 100.0% A | 1,511ms C | $0.013 B | 90.2% C | 75.0% B | 0.0% A | 87.8% A | - | 78.0% D | 7.5 B | 100.0% A | 24.4% C | 100.0% A | 58.3% C |
| 13 | People Data Labs | 2.3 C | 95.9% B | 95.7% D | 672ms A | $0.240 D | 93.6% B | 40.0% C | 0.0% A | 80.9% C | 65.8% C | 93.6% C | 7.7 B | 95.7% B | 89.4% B | 95.7% D | 66.7% C |
| 14 | Diffbot | 2.3 C | 85.0% C | 100.0% A | 7,232ms D | $0.022 B | 68.6% D | 25.0% D | 20.0% D | 49.0% D | - | 86.3% D | 6.2 C | 90.2% B | 72.5% B | 94.1% D | 60.0% C |
| 15 | Hunter.io | 2.3 C | 44.9% D | 100.0% A | 1,223ms B | $0.0030 A | 90.9% C | 25.0% D | 0.0% A | 81.8% B | - | 100.0% A | - | 0.0% D | 0.0% D | 100.0% A | 14.3% D |
| 16 | Blitz API | 2.2 C | 91.8% C | 93.3% D | 294ms A | $0.054 C | 95.6% A | - | - | 86.7% A | - | 86.7% C | 7.7 B | 100.0% A | 22.2% C | 100.0% A | 75.0% C |
| 17 | Snov.io | 2.2 C | 83.7% D | 100.0% A | - | $0.0095 B | 85.4% C | - | - | 61.0% C | - | 97.6% A | 0.0 D | 0.0% D | 78.0% B | 100.0% A | 55.6% D |
| 18 | Enrich.so | 2.2 C | 13.3% D | 100.0% A | 3,326ms C | $0.0060 A | 50.0% D | - | 0.0% A | 50.0% D | - | 75.0% D | 1.0 D | 50.0% C | 62.5% B | 100.0% A | 0.0% D |
| 19 | RocketReach | 2.1 C | 91.8% C | 95.6% D | 6,290ms D | $0.316 D | 95.6% A | - | - | 86.7% A | - | 93.3% C | 7.5 B | 97.8% B | 73.3% B | 100.0% A | 83.3% B |
| 20 | Bright Data | 2.1 C | 89.8% C | 97.7% D | 12,746ms D | $0.0013 A | 84.1% D | 76.9% B | 0.0% A | 0.0% D | - | 95.5% B | - | 68.2% C | 0.0% D | 100.0% A | 57.1% C |
| 21 | LeadMagic | 2.1 C | 83.7% D | 100.0% A | 1,947ms C | $0.010 B | 92.7% B | 13.5% D | 0.0% A | 48.8% D | - | 95.1% B | 0.1 D | 0.0% D | 0.0% D | 100.0% A | 66.7% C |
| 22 | GetLeads | 2.1 C | 66.7% D | 100.0% A | 3,454ms D | $0.074 C | 97.5% A | - | 0.0% A | 60.0% C | 62.5% D | 92.5% C | - | 0.0% D | 0.0% D | 100.0% A | 50.0% D |
| 23 | Lusha | 1.8 C | 89.8% C | 97.7% D | 739ms A | $0.122 D | 93.2% B | - | - | 81.8% B | 73.8% C | 95.5% B | 0.8 D | 0.0% D | 0.0% D | 100.0% A | 66.7% C |
| 24 | Datagma | 1.4 D | 69.4% D | 97.1% D | 3,143ms C | $0.026 C | 29.4% D | 38.5% C | 0.0% A | 38.2% D | - | 0.0% D | - | 0.0% D | 0.0% D | 100.0% A | 33.3% D |

### Price basis

The cost metric is the list price of one request on the central pack of each provider's self-serve price ladder, spread over the useful results that request yields.

| Provider | Pack | Position | Pack price | Volume | Per request | Credits / request | Billed | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reverse Contact | Pay-as-you-go 200,000 credits | tier 8 of 14 | $1,800, one-time | 200,000 credits | $0.009 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://www.reversecontact.com/pricing |
| Prospeo | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 5,000 credits | $0.020 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://prospeo.io/pricing |
| Apollo.io | Professional (1 seat) | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 4,000 credits | $0.025 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://www.apollo.io/pricing |
| Coresignal | Growth | tier 4 of 7 | $1,000 / month | 150,000 credits | $0.133 | 20 credits | Only when found | https://coresignal.com/pricing/ |
| AI Ark | Usage Based 300,000 credits | tier 7 of 12 | $879 / month | 300,000 credits | $0.002 | 0.5 credits | Only when found | https://ai-ark.com/pricing |
| Wiza | API credits 101,000 | tier 2 of 3 | $2,525, one-time | 101,000 credits | $0.025 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://wiza.co/app/settings/api |
| Forager | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $100 / month | 5,250 credits | $0.019 | 1 credit | Every request | https://www.forager.ai/pricing |
| Fiber AI | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $900 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.036 | 2 credits | Only when found | https://www.fiber.ai/pricing.md |
| Icypeas | Hypergrowth 50K | tier 6 of 11 | $445 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.013 | 1.5 credits | Only when found | https://icypeas.com/pricing |
| People Data Labs | Published range $0.20-$0.28 per record | midpoint, per-volume grid not readable | Self-serve | priced per record | $0.240 | - | Only when found | https://www.peopledatalabs.com/blog/post/understanding-pricing-at-pdl |
| Diffbot | Plus | tier 2 of 2 | $899 / month | 1,000,000 credits | $0.022 | 25 credits | Only when found | https://www.diffbot.com/pricing/ |
| Hunter.io | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $149 / month | 10,000 credits | $0.003 | 0.2 credits | Only when found | https://hunter.io/pricing |
| Blitz API | Plus | tier 2 of 3 | $499 / month | flat rate, spread over 10,000 requests | $0.050 | - | Every request | https://www.blitz-api.ai/pricing |
| Snov.io | Pro M | tier 3 of 5 | $189 / month | 20,000 credits | $0.009 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://snov.io/pricing |
| Enrich.so | Scale | tier 2 of 3 | $149 / month | 500,000 credits | $0.006 | 20 credits | Only when found | https://www.enrich.so/pricing |
| RocketReach | Pro + Phone | tier 2 of 3 | $79 / month | 250 credits | $0.316 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://rocketreach.co/pricing |
| Bright Data | Scale | tier 2 of 2 | $499 / month | 384,000 credits | $0.001 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://brightdata.com/pricing/web-scraper |
| LeadMagic | Professional | tier 3 of 4 | $499 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.010 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://leadmagic.io/pricing |
| GetLeads | Unlimited | tier 2 of 2 | $497 / month | flat rate, spread over 10,000 requests | $0.050 | - | Every request | https://www.getleads.io/pricing |
| Lusha | Premium 5,200 credits | tier 25 of 49 | $568.65 / month | 5,200 credits | $0.109 | 1 credit | Every request | https://www.lusha.com/pricing/ |
| Datagma | Popular | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 7,500 credits | $0.026 | 2 credits | Only when found | https://datagma.com/en/pricing |

- RocketReach: profile read off the phone call, priced as a profile lookup
- Lusha: profile read off the phone call, priced as a profile lookup

No public self-serve price, so no cost metric: Aviato, Crustdata, ContactOut.

### Not measured in this run

BetterContact, Captain Data, Cognism, Crunchbase, Findymail, FullEnrich, HarvestAPI, LeadIQ, Surfe, ZoomInfo.

## Company Data

- Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/company
- Run: 2026-09-25
- Test set: 100 domains · 35 FR / 25 UK / 25 US / 15 other EU · 5 size bands · set v2026-09-25.1
- Grading: registries and filings (objective)

Given a domain, how complete and correct is the company record? Name, headcount, headquarters and founding year are graded against registries and filings, where objective truth exists.

### Method

1. **Who is in the test set.** 100 company web domains: 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 from 10-50 to 10,000+ employees; 35 industries; a few acquired, closed and subsidiary edge cases.
2. **How each provider is asked.** Each domain is sent to each provider's company-enrichment endpoint. Providers that key companies by LinkedIn URL (Blitz API, Icypeas) first resolve the domain with their own lookup, and both calls are priced. People Data Labs ran on 45 domains (the account behind the calls reached its cap) and Captain Data on 36 (mostly French). Wiza ran through its web app (a company list enriched from an uploaded file), so its latency is not measured.
3. **How a record is judged.** Ground truth comes from registries and filings: recherche-entreprises.api.gouv.fr for France, Companies House for the UK, SEC EDGAR for US public companies, annual reports otherwise. Name accuracy is against the legal or trading name; headcount must fall within 20% of the published figure, on the 74 domains that have one; HQ needs the country right, and the city right when the provider gives one; founding year must fall within one year of the registry year. Industry labels follow each provider's own taxonomy, so each (verified industry, returned label) pair is judged blind for "same industry": the judge sees the two labels, never the provider.
4. **What a company costs.** The list price of one request on the central pack of the provider's self-serve price ladder (the middle tier, the upper one when the count is even), divided by the match rate when the provider bills every request. The Price basis table shows the pack behind each number.
5. **What this does not tell you.** Revenue and funding have no registry truth for most of the set, and the set holds too few closed, acquired or subsidiary companies (5 and 6) to grade status or hierarchy, so none of these is graded; neither is how fresh a record is.

### Metrics

- **Domain-to-company match rate** (headline, breaks ties in the rank; higher is better; weight 10×): Share of test domains resolved to a company record.
- **Company name accuracy** (core; higher is better; weight 5×): Legal or trading name matches the registry.
- **Latency p50** (core; lower is better; weight 0.25×): Median time to an answer per request, from the same place for every provider (for asynchronous APIs, until the job completes).
- **Price / matched company** (core; lower is better; weight 3×): List price per matched company, on the central pack of the self-serve price ladder.
- **Industry accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of matched records whose industry label is judged blind to be the same industry as the verified one; a broad sector label ("Manufacturing", "Business Services") does not count.
- **Employee count ±20%** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Headcount within 20% of verified public figure.
- **HQ / location accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Headquarters country correct, and city when the provider gives one.
- **Description present** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of matched records with a non-empty description.
- **Founding year accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Within one year of the registry year.
- **Domains / social profiles** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of matched records carrying the company's LinkedIn URL.
- **Coverage by country / size** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Lowest match rate across country × size cells.

### Leaders

- **Overall** (weighted mean of grades): Apollo.io 3.7 A; next Wiza 3.4 B
- **Domain-to-company match rate**: Apollo.io, Wiza, Crunchbase, Hunter.io, Surfe, Fiber AI, People Data Labs, Prospeo 100.0% (tied); next AI Ark 99.0% (23 measured)
- **Company name accuracy**: Captain Data 100.0%; next LeadIQ 98.4% (23 measured)
- **Latency p50**: LeadIQ 306ms; next Reverse Contact 308ms (20 measured)
- **Price / matched company**: AI Ark $0.0003; next Hunter.io $0.0030 (16 measured)
- **Industry accuracy**: Aviato 86.2%; next Diffbot 83.8% (23 measured)
- **Employee count ±20%**: Apollo.io 73.0%; next Diffbot 69.9% (23 measured)
- **HQ / location accuracy**: ContactOut 93.8%; next RocketReach 86.7% (23 measured)
- **Description present**: Apollo.io, AI Ark, Crunchbase, Surfe, Diffbot, Reverse Contact, LeadIQ, Captain Data, Aviato 100.0% (tied); next Lusha 99.0% (23 measured)
- **Founding year accuracy**: Apollo.io 76.0%; next AI Ark 75.8% (23 measured)
- **Domains / social profiles**: Wiza, Surfe, Fiber AI, People Data Labs, Prospeo, ContactOut, Reverse Contact, Datagma 100.0% (tied); next RocketReach 99.0% (23 measured)
- **Coverage by country / size**: Apollo.io, Wiza, Crunchbase, Hunter.io, Surfe, Fiber AI, People Data Labs, Prospeo 100.0% (tied); next AI Ark 95.0% (23 measured)

### Leaderboard

Ranked on Overall, the weighted mean grade (A = 4 to D = 1), ties broken on Domain-to-company match rate. Each value is followed by its grade.

| Rank | Provider | Overall | Domain-to-company match rate | Company name accuracy | Latency p50 | Price / matched company | Industry accuracy | Employee count ±20% | HQ / location accuracy | Description present | Founding year accuracy | Domains / social profiles | Coverage by country / size |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Apollo.io | 3.7 A | 100.0% A | 98.0% A | 906ms B | $0.025 B | 76.0% C | 73.0% A | 86.0% A | 100.0% A | 76.0% A | 97.0% C | 100.0% A |
| 2 | Wiza | 3.4 B | 100.0% A | 96.0% B | - | - | 81.0% A | 16.2% D | 80.0% C | 70.0% D | 72.0% B | 100.0% A | 100.0% A |
| 3 | AI Ark | 3.4 B | 99.0% B | 97.0% A | 1,158ms C | $0.0003 A | 77.8% B | 27.0% A | 85.9% A | 100.0% A | 75.8% A | 98.0% C | 95.0% B |
| 4 | Crunchbase | 3.3 B | 100.0% A | 96.0% B | - | - | 61.0% D | 0.0% D | 82.0% B | 100.0% A | 75.0% A | 0.0% D | 100.0% A |
| 5 | Hunter.io | 3.3 B | 100.0% A | 96.0% B | 1,043ms C | $0.0030 A | 38.0% D | 25.7% B | 83.0% B | 97.0% C | 52.0% D | 0.0% D | 100.0% A |
| 6 | Surfe | 3.3 B | 100.0% A | 96.0% B | - | - | 47.0% D | 18.9% C | 66.0% D | 100.0% A | 17.0% D | 100.0% A | 100.0% A |
| 7 | Fiber AI | 3.1 B | 100.0% A | 95.0% C | 1,131ms C | $0.036 C | 77.0% C | 27.0% A | 85.0% A | 97.0% C | 69.0% B | 100.0% A | 100.0% A |
| 8 | People Data Labs | 3.0 B | 100.0% A | 95.6% C | 524ms A | $0.075 C | 80.0% A | 16.7% C | 75.6% D | 97.8% C | 64.4% B | 100.0% A | 100.0% A |
| 9 | Prospeo | 2.9 B | 100.0% A | 94.0% D | 1,050ms C | $0.020 B | 78.0% B | 25.7% B | 81.0% C | 94.0% D | 58.0% C | 100.0% A | 100.0% A |
| 10 | Diffbot | 2.9 B | 99.0% B | 94.9% C | 1,127ms C | $0.022 B | 83.8% A | 69.9% A | 82.8% B | 100.0% A | 73.7% A | 94.9% D | 95.0% B |
| 11 | ContactOut | 2.6 B | 97.0% C | 95.9% B | 707ms B | - | 77.3% B | 26.0% B | 93.8% A | 96.9% C | 69.1% B | 100.0% A | 90.0% C |
| 12 | Lusha | 2.5 B | 99.0% B | 94.9% C | 778ms B | $0.219 D | 42.4% D | 27.0% A | 83.8% B | 99.0% B | 71.7% B | 98.0% C | 95.0% B |
| 13 | Reverse Contact | 2.5 B | 97.0% C | 95.9% B | 308ms A | $0.027 C | 78.4% A | 26.0% B | 80.4% C | 100.0% A | 57.7% C | 100.0% A | 90.0% C |
| 14 | RocketReach | 2.4 C | 98.0% C | 95.9% B | 546ms B | - | 71.4% D | 25.7% B | 86.7% A | 96.9% C | 71.4% B | 99.0% B | 90.0% C |
| 15 | Blitz API | 2.0 C | 97.0% C | 94.8% D | 522ms A | $0.051 C | 78.4% A | 26.0% B | 82.5% B | 96.9% C | 60.8% C | 97.9% C | 94.3% C |
| 16 | Icypeas | 2.0 C | 97.0% C | 94.8% D | 1,893ms D | $0.013 B | 77.3% B | 21.9% C | 81.4% B | 96.9% C | 59.8% C | 97.9% C | 94.3% C |
| 17 | LeadIQ | 2.0 C | 95.3% D | 98.4% A | 306ms A | $0.136 D | 75.4% C | 23.4% C | 77.0% C | 100.0% A | 62.3% B | 98.4% B | 84.6% D |
| 18 | Findymail | 1.9 C | 98.0% C | 92.9% D | 1,168ms D | $0.013 A | 73.5% C | 0.0% D | 80.6% C | 92.9% D | 0.0% D | 98.0% C | 90.0% C |
| 19 | Coresignal | 1.9 C | 97.0% C | 93.8% D | 1,039ms C | $0.133 D | 78.4% A | 27.4% A | 80.4% C | 97.9% B | 59.8% C | 97.9% C | 94.3% C |
| 20 | Captain Data | 1.9 C | 69.4% D | 100.0% A | 7,017ms D | $0.064 C | 72.0% C | 10.0% D | 72.0% D | 100.0% A | 32.0% D | 96.0% D | 42.9% D |
| 21 | Aviato | 1.8 C | 87.0% D | 95.4% C | 562ms B | - | 86.2% A | 20.6% C | 83.9% B | 100.0% A | 74.7% A | 95.4% D | 74.3% D |
| 22 | LeadMagic | 1.6 C | 92.0% D | 94.6% D | 1,273ms D | $0.010 A | 77.2% B | 16.2% D | 63.0% D | 98.9% B | 58.7% C | 98.9% B | 75.0% D |
| 23 | Datagma | 1.4 D | 91.0% D | 95.6% C | 667ms B | - | 74.7% C | 9.0% D | 45.1% D | 71.4% D | 56.0% D | 100.0% A | 84.0% D |

### Price basis

The cost metric is the list price of one request on the central pack of each provider's self-serve price ladder, spread over the useful results that request yields.

| Provider | Pack | Position | Pack price | Volume | Per request | Credits / request | Billed | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Apollo.io | Professional (1 seat) | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 4,000 credits | $0.025 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://www.apollo.io/pricing |
| AI Ark | Usage Based 300,000 credits | tier 7 of 12 | $879 / month | 300,000 credits | $0.000 | 0.1 credits | Only when found | https://ai-ark.com/pricing |
| Hunter.io | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $149 / month | 10,000 credits | $0.003 | 0.2 credits | Only when found | https://hunter.io/pricing |
| Fiber AI | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $900 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.036 | 2 credits | Only when found | https://www.fiber.ai/pricing.md |
| People Data Labs | Published range $0.05-$0.10 per record | midpoint, per-volume grid not readable | Self-serve | priced per record | $0.075 | - | Only when found | https://www.peopledatalabs.com/blog/post/understanding-pricing-at-pdl |
| Prospeo | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 5,000 credits | $0.020 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://prospeo.io/pricing |
| Diffbot | Plus | tier 2 of 2 | $899 / month | 1,000,000 credits | $0.022 | 25 credits | Only when found | https://www.diffbot.com/pricing/ |
| Lusha | Premium 5,200 credits | tier 25 of 49 | $568.65 / month | 5,200 credits | $0.219 | 2 credits | Only when found | https://www.lusha.com/pricing/ |
| Reverse Contact | Pay-as-you-go 200,000 credits | tier 8 of 14 | $1,800, one-time | 200,000 credits | $0.027 | 3 credits | Only when found | https://www.reversecontact.com/pricing |
| Blitz API | Plus | tier 2 of 3 | $499 / month | flat rate, spread over 10,000 requests | $0.050 | - | Every request | https://www.blitz-api.ai/pricing |
| Icypeas | Hypergrowth 50K | tier 6 of 11 | $445 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.013 | 1.5 credits | Only when found | https://icypeas.com/pricing |
| LeadIQ | Pro 2,800 credits | tier 27 of 53 | $127.12 / month | 2,800 credits | $0.136 | 3 credits | Only when found | https://leadiq.com/pricing |
| Findymail | Business Plus | tier 4 of 6 | $399 / month | 30,000 credits | $0.013 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://www.findymail.com/pricing/ |
| Coresignal | Growth | tier 4 of 7 | $1,000 / month | 150,000 credits | $0.133 | 20 credits | Only when found | https://coresignal.com/pricing/ |
| Captain Data | Gold 500,000 credits | tier 9 of 16 | $7,357.99 / month | 500,000 credits | $0.044 | 3 credits | Every request | https://www.captaindata.com/pricing |
| LeadMagic | Professional | tier 3 of 4 | $499 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.010 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://leadmagic.io/pricing |

No public self-serve price, so no cost metric: Wiza, Crunchbase, Surfe, ContactOut, RocketReach, Aviato, Datagma.

### Not measured in this run

BetterContact, Bright Data, Cognism, Crustdata, Forager, FullEnrich, GetLeads, HarvestAPI, QuickEnrich, Snov.io, ZoomInfo.

## Live Profile Data

- Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/live
- Run: 2026-09-26
- Test set: 52 people who changed jobs + 49 controls · 25 NA / 13 EU / 14 RoW movers · set v2026-09-26.1
- Grading: employer-published record and first-party job-change announcements (objective)

A live endpoint fetches the profile when it is asked instead of serving a stored copy. Given a profile URL, does the provider return the person's current job, including for people who changed jobs a few weeks ago? Graded against the employer's own record and first-party announcements of each move.

### Method

1. **Who is in the test set.** Two groups, frozen before any provider is called. The 52 movers are people whose move to a new employer that employer announced in its own press release, published between 2026-07-21 and 2026-09-11, with the start date passed on the run day: 25 in North America, 13 in Europe and 14 elsewhere, mostly C-level and VP hires (30 and 16, with 6 directors), since those are the moves companies announce. The release names the previous employer for 42 of them. Their profile URL was found with a web search, kept only when the result carried the full name and the new or previous employer. The controls are the 49 people of the People suite who have a profile URL, whose title and employer their employer's own website confirmed on 2026-09-25.
2. **How each provider is asked.** Each provider's live profile endpoint receives the profile URL, the way a customer would send it, on 2026-09-26, every provider within the same hours. HarvestAPI reads the public profile; Fiber AI is its live-fetch endpoint; Bright Data is its LinkedIn Profiles dataset collected by URL; Aviato is its person enrichment with a forced rescrape; Reverse Contact is its live endpoint, which is asynchronous, so its time runs until the job completes.
3. **How an answer is judged.** The current job is the position the profile marks as current (the first one when several are). It counts when its employer is the verified one: the announced new employer for a mover, the employer-confirmed one for a control. Move detection is the share of movers shown at their new employer; still at previous employer is the share of returned mover profiles whose current job is the one they left. A profile a provider does not return counts as a miss in current-job accuracy.
4. **What a profile costs.** The list price of one request on the central pack of the provider's self-serve price ladder (the middle tier, the upper one when the count is even), divided by the fetch success when the provider bills every request. The Price basis table shows the pack behind each number.
5. **What this does not tell you.** A person who has not updated their own profile still shows the old job to every provider alike, so move detection has a ceiling below 100% that no provider can pass; compare providers with each other, not with 100%. Contact data, rate limits and behaviour on private profiles are not measured.

### Metrics

- **Current-job accuracy** (headline, breaks ties in the rank; higher is better; weight 10×): Of every profile requested, the share returned with the verified current employer (the announced new one for people who moved).
- **Fetch success** (core; higher is better; weight 5×): Share of requested profiles for which a profile is returned.
- **Latency p50** (core; lower is better; weight 0.25×): Median time to an answer per request, from the same place for every provider (for asynchronous APIs, until the job completes).
- **Cost / profile** (core; lower is better; weight 3×): List price per returned profile, on the central pack of the self-serve price ladder.
- **Move detection** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Of the people who changed jobs, the share shown at their new employer.
- **Still at previous employer** (suite-specific; lower is better; weight 1×): Of the returned profiles of people who changed jobs, the share whose current job is still the one they left.
- **Control accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Of the controls, the share returned with the employer their employer confirmed.
- **Work history completeness** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Average prior roles returned.
- **Education completeness** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of returned profiles with at least one school.

### Leaders

- **Overall** (weighted mean of grades): Reverse Contact 3.7 A; next HarvestAPI 3.4 B
- **Current-job accuracy**: Reverse Contact 95.0%; next HarvestAPI 93.1% (5 measured)
- **Fetch success**: Reverse Contact, HarvestAPI 99.0% (tied); next Fiber AI 98.0% (5 measured)
- **Latency p50**: Aviato 3,323ms; next HarvestAPI 3,350ms (5 measured)
- **Cost / profile**: Bright Data $0.0013; next HarvestAPI $0.0037 (4 measured)
- **Move detection**: Reverse Contact, HarvestAPI, Fiber AI 94.2% (tied); next Aviato 86.5% (5 measured)
- **Still at previous employer**: HarvestAPI 2.4%; next Reverse Contact 4.8% (5 measured)
- **Control accuracy**: Reverse Contact 95.9%; next HarvestAPI 91.8% (5 measured)
- **Work history completeness**: Reverse Contact, HarvestAPI 9.1 (tied); next Fiber AI 8.6 (4 measured)
- **Education completeness**: Reverse Contact, HarvestAPI, Fiber AI 99.0% (tied); next Aviato 95.6% (5 measured)

### Leaderboard

Ranked on Overall, the weighted mean grade (A = 4 to D = 1), ties broken on Current-job accuracy. Each value is followed by its grade.

| Rank | Provider | Overall | Current-job accuracy | Fetch success | Latency p50 | Cost / profile | Move detection | Still at previous employer | Control accuracy | Work history completeness | Education completeness |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Reverse Contact | 3.7 A | 95.0% A | 99.0% A | 15,715ms D | $0.018 C | 94.2% A | 4.8% B | 95.9% A | 9.1 A | 99.0% A |
| 2 | HarvestAPI | 3.4 B | 93.1% B | 99.0% A | 3,350ms B | $0.0037 B | 94.2% A | 2.4% A | 91.8% B | 9.1 A | 99.0% A |
| 3 | Fiber AI | 2.8 B | 93.1% B | 98.0% B | 5,381ms B | $0.037 D | 94.2% A | 4.8% B | 91.8% B | 8.6 C | 99.0% A |
| 4 | Aviato | 1.7 C | 83.2% C | 90.1% D | 3,323ms A | - | 86.5% C | 5.0% D | 79.6% C | 8.0 D | 95.6% C |
| 5 | Bright Data | 1.6 C | 79.2% D | 91.1% C | 9,230ms C | $0.0013 A | 84.6% D | 5.0% D | 73.5% D | - | 68.5% D |

### Price basis

The cost metric is the list price of one request on the central pack of each provider's self-serve price ladder, spread over the useful results that request yields.

| Provider | Pack | Position | Pack price | Volume | Per request | Credits / request | Billed | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reverse Contact | Pay-as-you-go 200,000 credits | tier 8 of 14 | $1,800, one-time | 200,000 credits | $0.018 | 2 credits | Every request | https://www.reversecontact.com/pricing |
| HarvestAPI | Pro top-up | tier 3 of 4 | $280 / month | 483.59 credits | $0.004 | 0.0064 credits | Every request | https://api.harvestapi.io/users/subscriptions-info |
| Fiber AI | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $900 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.036 | 2 credits | Every request | https://www.fiber.ai/pricing.md |
| Bright Data | Scale | tier 2 of 2 | $499 / month | 384,000 credits | $0.001 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://brightdata.com/pricing/web-scraper |

No public self-serve price, so no cost metric: Aviato.

## Intent Data

- Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/intent
- Run: not measured yet
- Test set: 200 buying accounts + 200 controls · 8 topics · set v2026-09-02.1
- Grading: declared-purchase panel (objective)

Intent products are the hardest to compare because every vendor defines signals differently. This suite grades every provider against the same panel of disclosed purchases, then catalogs what each actually exposes.

### Method

1. **Planned test set.** 200 accounts are drawn from a panel of companies that disclosed a purchase decision in one of 8 software categories during the window, plus 200 matched controls that did not. Each provider is queried for intent on all 400 accounts across the 8 topics, on the same days.
2. **Planned grading.** Signal accuracy is the share of flagged accounts that actually bought; false-positive rate is the share of controls flagged. Predictive lift is the buy rate among flagged accounts divided by the control buy rate. Freshness is the lag between the first observed signal and the disclosed decision date. Granularity, resolution level, frequency, source diversity, customization and historical depth are catalogued deterministically from the API responses captured during the run.

### Metrics

- **Accounts with signal** (headline, breaks ties in the rank; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of buying accounts for which any signal was returned.
- **Signal accuracy** (core; higher is better; weight 1×): Flagged accounts that disclosed a purchase in the window.
- **Freshness** (core; lower is better; weight 1×): Median lag between first signal and the disclosed decision.
- **Latency p50** (core; lower is better; weight 1×): Median time to an answer per request, from the same place for every provider (for asynchronous APIs, until the job completes).
- **Price / signal** (core; lower is better; weight 1×): List price per useful result, on the central pack of the self-serve price ladder.
- **API quality** (core; higher is better; weight 1×): Rubric score from public material: docs, spec, auth, rate limits, errors, SDKs, status page, sandbox, changelog.
- **Predictive lift** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Buy rate among flagged accounts vs. control group.
- **False-positive rate** (suite-specific; lower is better; weight 1×): Share of control accounts flagged with intent.
- **Topic granularity** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Distinct topics available per account.
- **Resolution level** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Account-level, person-level or both.
- **Signal frequency** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): How often signals refresh.
- **Source diversity** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Distinct source families disclosed (web, content, hiring, tech…).
- **Geographic coverage** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Countries with accounts carrying signals.
- **Custom topics** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Buyer can define its own topics or keywords.
- **Historical depth** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Oldest signal retrievable.

### Results

Not measured in this run. Providers in this suite: Apollo.io, Cognism, Crustdata, Findymail, GetLeads, Hunter.io, LeadMagic, Lusha, Prospeo, RocketReach, ZoomInfo.

## Jobs Data

- Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/jobs
- Run: 2026-09-25
- Test set: 60 companies · 18 FR / 14 UK / 16 US / 12 other EU · 1,724 open roles · set v2026-09-25.1
- Grading: the companies' own ATS boards (objective)

For a fixed set of companies whose careers pages run on a public ATS board, how many of their open roles does the provider return, how many of its postings are closed or duplicated, and are locations and dates right?

### Method

1. **Who is in the test set.** 60 companies (18 in France, 14 in the United Kingdom, 16 in the United States, 12 elsewhere in Europe) whose careers pages run on a public Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby or Recruitee board with 5 to 60 open roles, and whose board descriptions name the company. Their 1,724 open roles were read from the boards' public APIs on the run day: title, locations, publication date.
2. **How each provider is asked.** Each provider lists the company's postings the way its API does, page after page: Apollo by organization (resolved from the domain first), Blitz API by LinkedIn company page (resolved from the domain first), LeadMagic by domain, keeping the postings it marks open, Crustdata by domain, restricted to listings updated in the 30 days before the run, since its index keeps closed postings for years, and Bright Data through its LinkedIn job listings dataset, discovered by company name, worldwide and at any date. Bright Data runs every company of a batch in one asynchronous job, so its latency is not measured.
3. **How a posting is judged.** A returned posting is matched to an open role by the ATS job id in its link when it points to the board, otherwise by its title (gender tags and punctuation dropped; the same words, or the same words give or take two, such as a region suffix), preferring a role in the same country. Recall is the share of the 1,724 open roles found. A posting that matches no open role counts as closed or unknown; one that matches a role another posting already matched counts as a duplicate. Location needs the country right; the posted date must fall within 3 days of the board's publication date.
4. **What a job costs.** The list price of the requests on the central pack of the provider's self-serve price ladder (the middle tier, the upper one when the count is even), for all 60 companies, divided by the open roles found: per page for Apollo, per posting returned for LeadMagic, per request for Blitz API's flat-rate plan spread over 10,000 requests. Crustdata publishes no dollar price.
5. **What this does not tell you.** A single snapshot says nothing about how fast a new role appears or a closed one disappears, and history is not graded. A company whose roles also live on job boards outside its ATS can make a real posting look unknown, alike for every provider.

### Metrics

- **Employer coverage** (headline, breaks ties in the rank; higher is better; weight 10×): Share of test companies with at least one posting returned.
- **Postings recall** (core; higher is better; weight 5×): Share of the companies' open roles found among the returned postings.
- **Latency p50** (core; lower is better; weight 0.25×): Median time to list one company, all pages and the lookup before them included.
- **Cost / job** (core; lower is better; weight 3×): List price of the requests divided by the open roles found, on the central pack of the self-serve price ladder.
- **Closed or unknown postings** (suite-specific; lower is better; weight 1×): Returned postings that match no open role on the company board.
- **Duplicate postings** (suite-specific; lower is better; weight 1×): Returned postings that repeat a role another posting already matched.
- **Location accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Matched postings whose country is one the role is open in.
- **Posted-date accuracy** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Matched postings dated within 3 days of the board's publication date.
- **Description present** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Returned postings carrying the full description text.
- **Coverage by country** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Lowest employer coverage across the four regions.

### Leaders

- **Overall** (weighted mean of grades): Bright Data, Apollo.io 3.6 A; next HarvestAPI 2.7 B
- **Employer coverage**: Bright Data 98.3%; next Apollo.io 96.7% (6 measured)
- **Postings recall**: Bright Data 85.0%; next Apollo.io 78.0% (6 measured)
- **Latency p50**: Blitz API 2,143ms; next Crustdata 2,858ms (5 measured)
- **Cost / job**: HarvestAPI $0.0001; next Bright Data $0.0017 (5 measured)
- **Closed or unknown postings**: Bright Data 10.4%; next HarvestAPI 10.6% (6 measured)
- **Duplicate postings**: Crustdata 13.8%; next Bright Data 15.0% (6 measured)
- **Location accuracy**: LeadMagic 97.3%; next Crustdata 96.6% (6 measured)
- **Posted-date accuracy**: Apollo.io 67.8%; next Crustdata 66.8% (6 measured)
- **Description present**: Bright Data, Crustdata 100.0% (tied); next Apollo.io 0.0% (6 measured)
- **Coverage by country**: Bright Data, Apollo.io 92.9% (tied); next HarvestAPI 91.7% (6 measured)

### Leaderboard

Ranked on Overall, the weighted mean grade (A = 4 to D = 1), ties broken on Employer coverage. Each value is followed by its grade.

| Rank | Provider | Overall | Employer coverage | Postings recall | Latency p50 | Cost / job | Closed or unknown postings | Duplicate postings | Location accuracy | Posted-date accuracy | Description present | Coverage by country |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Bright Data | 3.6 A | 98.3% A | 85.0% A | - | $0.0017 B | 10.4% A | 15.0% B | 95.5% C | 24.5% D | 100.0% A | 92.9% A |
| 2 | Apollo.io | 3.6 A | 96.7% A | 78.0% A | 3,896ms B | $0.0023 B | 29.9% B | 15.0% B | 96.3% B | 67.8% A | 0.0% D | 92.9% A |
| 3 | HarvestAPI | 2.7 B | 95.0% B | 59.3% C | 4,579ms C | $0.0001 A | 10.6% A | 33.8% D | 96.3% B | 32.8% C | 0.0% D | 91.7% B |
| 4 | LeadMagic | 2.1 C | 85.0% C | 76.7% B | 9,729ms D | $0.028 D | 47.3% C | 16.7% C | 97.3% A | 66.3% B | 0.0% D | 78.6% D |
| 5 | Blitz API | 1.9 C | 91.7% C | 73.2% C | 2,143ms A | $0.019 C | 71.2% D | 22.2% C | 93.1% D | 58.4% C | 0.0% D | 88.9% C |
| 6 | Crustdata | 1.7 C | 83.3% D | 47.6% D | 2,858ms B | - | 35.4% C | 13.8% A | 96.6% A | 66.8% A | 100.0% A | 81.3% C |

### Price basis

The cost metric is the list price of one request on the central pack of each provider's self-serve price ladder, spread over the useful results that request yields.

| Provider | Pack | Position | Pack price | Volume | Per request | Credits / request | Billed | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Bright Data | Scale | tier 2 of 2 | $499 / month | 384,000 credits | $0.001 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://brightdata.com/pricing/web-scraper |
| Apollo.io | Professional (1 seat) | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 4,000 credits | $0.025 | 1 credit | Every request | https://www.apollo.io/pricing |
| HarvestAPI | Pro top-up | tier 3 of 4 | $280 / month | 483.59 credits | $0.001 | 0.001 credits | Every request | https://api.harvestapi.io/users/subscriptions-info |
| LeadMagic | Professional | tier 3 of 4 | $499 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.010 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://leadmagic.io/pricing |
| Blitz API | Plus | tier 2 of 3 | $499 / month | flat rate, spread over 10,000 requests | $0.050 | - | Every request | https://www.blitz-api.ai/pricing |

No public self-serve price, so no cost metric: Crustdata.

### Not measured in this run

Aviato, Coresignal, Diffbot, Fiber AI, Forager, People Data Labs, Reverse Contact.

## Technographic Data

- Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/technographic
- Run: 2026-09-25
- Test set: 100 domains · 35 FR / 25 UK / 25 US / 15 other EU · 5 size bands · set v2026-09-25.1
- Grading: live-site and DNS detection (objective)

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.

### Method

1. **Who 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.
2. **How 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.
3. **How 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.
4. **How 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.
5. **What 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.
6. **What 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.

### Metrics

- **Coverage** (headline, breaks ties in the rank; higher is better; weight 10×): Share of test domains with at least one technology returned.
- **Detection accuracy** (core; higher is better; weight 5×): 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.
- **Latency p50** (core; lower is better; weight 0.25×): Median time to an answer per request, from the same place for every provider (for asynchronous APIs, until the job completes).
- **Cost / lookup** (core; lower is better; weight 3×): List price per domain with a technology list, on the central pack of the self-serve price ladder.
- **Live stack recall** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Of the business technologies seen on the site or in DNS, the share the provider returned, on the domains it answered.
- **Technologies per domain** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Median number of technologies returned for a domain with a result.
- **Dated results** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Share of returned technologies carrying a first- or last-seen date.
- **Coverage by geo / size** (suite-specific; higher is better; weight 1×): Lowest coverage across the four regions and five size bands.

### Leaders

- **Overall** (weighted mean of grades): Apollo.io, AI Ark 3.4 B; next Hunter.io 3.2 B
- **Coverage**: Apollo.io 100.0%; next AI Ark 96.0% (10 measured)
- **Detection accuracy**: Prospeo 79.5%; next Hunter.io 66.3% (10 measured)
- **Latency p50**: LeadIQ 306ms; next ContactOut 707ms (9 measured)
- **Cost / lookup**: AI Ark $0.0003; next Hunter.io $0.0032 (9 measured)
- **Live stack recall**: LeadIQ 76.5%; next Apollo.io 61.8% (10 measured)
- **Technologies per domain**: LeadIQ 87; next ContactOut 80 (10 measured)
- **Dated results**: Coresignal, Findymail 100.0% (tied); next Apollo.io 0.0% (10 measured)
- **Coverage by geo / size**: Apollo.io 100.0%; next Hunter.io 90.0% (10 measured)

### Leaderboard

Ranked on Overall, the weighted mean grade (A = 4 to D = 1), ties broken on Coverage. Each value is followed by its grade.

| Rank | Provider | Overall | Coverage | Detection accuracy | Latency p50 | Cost / lookup | Live stack recall | Technologies per domain | Dated results | Coverage by geo / size |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Apollo.io | 3.4 B | 100.0% A | 55.8% B | 906ms B | $0.025 B | 61.8% A | 73 B | 0.0% D | 100.0% A |
| 2 | AI Ark | 3.4 B | 96.0% A | 54.0% B | 1,158ms D | $0.0003 A | 39.9% B | 38 C | 0.0% D | 80.0% C |
| 3 | Hunter.io | 3.2 B | 95.0% B | 66.3% A | 1,043ms C | $0.0032 A | 25.4% C | 13 C | 0.0% D | 90.0% A |
| 4 | Prospeo | 3.1 B | 94.0% B | 79.5% A | 1,050ms C | $0.021 B | 59.9% B | 26 C | 0.0% D | 90.0% A |
| 5 | Forager | 2.9 B | 95.0% B | 63.5% B | - | $0.020 B | 44.0% B | 64 B | 0.0% D | 85.0% B |
| 6 | LeadIQ | 2.1 C | 93.8% C | 51.3% C | 306ms A | $0.139 D | 76.5% A | 87 A | 0.0% D | 84.6% B |
| 7 | ContactOut | 2.1 C | 85.0% C | 35.5% C | 707ms A | - | 37.1% C | 80 A | 0.0% D | 70.0% C |
| 8 | Coresignal | 1.8 C | 86.0% C | 32.1% D | 1,039ms B | $0.150 D | 14.6% C | 51 B | 100.0% A | 75.0% C |
| 9 | Findymail | 1.5 C | 39.0% D | 40.5% C | 807ms B | $0.034 C | 6.6% D | 8 D | 100.0% A | 0.0% D |
| 10 | Fiber AI | 1.1 D | 83.0% D | 18.0% D | 1,131ms D | $0.043 C | 6.6% D | 3 D | 0.0% D | 65.0% D |

### Price basis

The cost metric is the list price of one request on the central pack of each provider's self-serve price ladder, spread over the useful results that request yields.

| Provider | Pack | Position | Pack price | Volume | Per request | Credits / request | Billed | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Apollo.io | Professional (1 seat) | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 4,000 credits | $0.025 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://www.apollo.io/pricing |
| AI Ark | Usage Based 300,000 credits | tier 7 of 12 | $879 / month | 300,000 credits | $0.000 | 0.1 credits | Only when found | https://ai-ark.com/pricing |
| Hunter.io | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $149 / month | 10,000 credits | $0.003 | 0.2 credits | Only when found | https://hunter.io/pricing |
| Prospeo | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $99 / month | 5,000 credits | $0.020 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://prospeo.io/pricing |
| Forager | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $100 / month | 5,250 credits | $0.019 | 1 credit | Every request | https://www.forager.ai/pricing |
| LeadIQ | Pro 2,800 credits | tier 27 of 53 | $127.12 / month | 2,800 credits | $0.136 | 3 credits | Only when found | https://leadiq.com/pricing |
| Coresignal | Growth | tier 4 of 7 | $1,000 / month | 150,000 credits | $0.133 | 20 credits | Only when found | https://coresignal.com/pricing/ |
| Findymail | Business Plus | tier 4 of 6 | $399 / month | 30,000 credits | $0.013 | 1 credit | Only when found | https://www.findymail.com/pricing/ |
| Fiber AI | Growth | tier 2 of 3 | $900 / month | 50,000 credits | $0.036 | 2 credits | Only when found | https://www.fiber.ai/pricing.md |

No public self-serve price, so no cost metric: ContactOut.

### Not measured in this run

Aviato, Bright Data, Cognism, Crustdata, Diffbot, GetLeads, LeadMagic, Lusha, People Data Labs, Reverse Contact, RocketReach, ZoomInfo.

## API sub-reports

- **People Search API** (People Data, role + seniority + geo queries): not measured yet. https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/people/people-search
- **People Lookup API** (People Data, email to social profile): not measured yet. https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/people/people-lookup
- **Company Search API** (Company Data, industry + headcount + geo queries): not measured yet. https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/company/company-search
- **Company Lookup API** (Company Data, domain to company profile): not measured yet. https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/company/company-lookup
- **Company Live API** (Company Data, live social company profile, not cached): not measured yet. https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/benchmarks/company/company-live

## Providers

### AI Ark

- Site: https://ai-ark.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/ai-ark
- B2B people and company database with lookalike and semantic search, emails verified at export by BounceBan, mobile numbers, technographics and personality profiles, through a REST API, an MCP server and a CLI on monthly credit packages.
- Access: MCP, CLI, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks
- Reviews: 5/5 (A) across 27 reviews on G2, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - People Data: #6 of 24, overall 3.1 B; Profile match rate 95.9% B
  - Company Data: #3 of 23, overall 3.4 B; Domain-to-company match rate 99.0% B
  - Technographic Data: #2 of 10, overall 3.4 B; Coverage 96.0% A
  - Email Data: #10 of 29, overall 2.9 B; Match rate 69.4% B
  - Phone Data: #14 of 24, overall 2.6 B; Match rate 51.0% C

### Apollo.io

- Site: https://apollo.io · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/apollo
- All-in-one GTM platform: B2B database, prospecting, enrichment, job-posting filters, sequences, dialer and sales automation.
- Access: MCP, CLI, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.7/5 (A) across 10,265 reviews on G2, Capterra, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - People Data: #4 of 24, overall 3.1 B; Profile match rate 100.0% A
  - Company Data: #1 of 23, overall 3.7 A; Domain-to-company match rate 100.0% A
  - Jobs Data: #2 of 6, overall 3.6 A; Employer coverage 96.7% A
  - Technographic Data: #1 of 10, overall 3.4 B; Coverage 100.0% A
  - Email Data: #3 of 29, overall 3.4 B; Match rate 90.0% A
- Not measured: Intent Data, Phone Data

### Aviato

- Site: https://aviato.co · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/aviato
- People and company Data Engine API: profiles and work history, work and personal emails, phones, funding, job listings and tech stacks, with on-demand profile rescrapes.
- Access: API, Dataset, Batch · live data (fetched at request time)
- Results:
  - People Data: #2 of 24, overall 3.4 B; Profile match rate 98.0% A
  - Company Data: #21 of 23, overall 1.8 C; Domain-to-company match rate 87.0% D
  - Email Data: #19 of 29, overall 2.4 C; Match rate 75.5% B
  - Phone Data: #24 of 24, overall 1.3 D; Match rate 12.2% D
  - Live Profile Data: #4 of 5, overall 1.7 C; Current-job accuracy 83.2% C
- Not measured: Jobs Data, Technographic Data

### BetterContact

- Site: https://bettercontact.rocks · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/bettercontact
- Waterfall contact enrichment aggregating 20+ providers for emails and mobiles.
- Access: API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.8/5 (A) across 44 reviews on G2, Capterra
- Results:
  - Email Data: #6 of 29, overall 3.2 B; Match rate 90.9% A
  - Phone Data: #3 of 24, overall 3.3 B; Match rate 87.8% A
- Not measured: People Data, Company Data

### Blitz API

- Site: https://blitz-api.ai · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/blitz-api
- API-first GTM data over 1B+ records (550M+ professional profiles, 100M+ job postings): ICP search, people, company and job search, employee finder and enrichment, with MCP.
- Access: MCP, API
- Results:
  - People Data: #16 of 24, overall 2.2 C; Profile match rate 91.8% C
  - Company Data: #15 of 23, overall 2.0 C; Domain-to-company match rate 97.0% C
  - Jobs Data: #5 of 6, overall 1.9 C; Employer coverage 91.7% C
  - Email Data: #15 of 29, overall 2.7 B; Match rate 57.1% C
  - Phone Data: #23 of 24, overall 1.5 C; Match rate 34.7% D

### Bright Data

- Site: https://brightdata.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/bright-data
- Web-data infrastructure and company data feeds unifying 10+ sources, delivered to warehouses and files.
- Access: MCP, CLI, API, Dataset, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations · live data (fetched at request time)
- Reviews: 4.7/5 (A) across 413 reviews on G2, Capterra, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - People Data: #20 of 24, overall 2.1 C; Profile match rate 89.8% C
  - Jobs Data: #1 of 6, overall 3.6 A; Employer coverage 98.3% A
  - Live Profile Data: #5 of 5, overall 1.6 C; Current-job accuracy 79.2% D
- Not measured: Company Data, Technographic Data

### Captain Data

- Site: https://captaindata.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/captain-data
- Real-time people and company search / enrichment API over 750M+ profiles, strong on LinkedIn resolution and employee mapping.
- Access: MCP, API, Dataset · live data (fetched at request time)
- Reviews: 4.6/5 (A) across 80 reviews on G2, Capterra
- Results:
  - Company Data: #20 of 23, overall 1.9 C; Domain-to-company match rate 69.4% D
- Not measured: People Data

### Cognism

- Site: https://cognism.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/cognism
- Compliance-first sales intelligence with strong European coverage and phone-verified mobiles.
- Access: MCP, API, Dataset, CSV, Batch, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.5/5 (B) across 1,628 reviews on G2, Capterra
- Results:
  - Email Data: #24 of 29, overall 2.0 C; Match rate 66.1% C
  - Phone Data: #5 of 24, overall 3.0 B; Match rate 73.5% B
- Not measured: People Data, Company Data, Intent Data, Technographic Data

### ContactOut

- Site: https://contactout.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/contactout
- Contact data for recruiting and sales: browser extension, search / enrichment and API, personal and work emails.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.5/5 (B) across 128 reviews on G2, Capterra
- Results:
  - People Data: #11 of 24, overall 2.7 B; Profile match rate 91.8% C
  - Company Data: #11 of 23, overall 2.6 B; Domain-to-company match rate 97.0% C
  - Email Data: #14 of 29, overall 2.7 B; Match rate 69.4% B
  - Phone Data: #9 of 24, overall 2.7 B; Match rate 85.7% A
  - Technographic Data: #7 of 10, overall 2.1 C; Coverage 85.0% C

### Coresignal

- Site: https://coresignal.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/coresignal
- Structured public-web B2B datasets (employees, companies, jobs) with API, MCP and agentic search, a real-time employee endpoint that fetches at request time, and gated contact enrichment.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Dataset, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations · live data (fetched at request time)
- Reviews: 4.8/5 (A) across 12 reviews on Datarade
- Results:
  - People Data: #5 of 24, overall 3.1 B; Profile match rate 98.0% A
  - Company Data: #19 of 23, overall 1.9 C; Domain-to-company match rate 97.0% C
  - Technographic Data: #8 of 10, overall 1.8 C; Coverage 86.0% C
  - Email Data: #27 of 29, overall 1.4 D; Match rate 55.1% D
- Not measured: Jobs Data

### Crunchbase

- Site: https://crunchbase.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/crunchbase
- Private-company database of firmographics, funding rounds, investors, key people and predictions, licensed through API v4, MCP and bulk exports.
- Access: MCP, API, Dataset, CSV, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.4/5 (B) across 413 reviews on G2, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - Company Data: #4 of 23, overall 3.3 B; Domain-to-company match rate 100.0% A
- Not measured: People Data

### Crustdata

- Site: https://crustdata.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/crustdata
- Unified B2B data API for company, people, jobs, web and social data, with email and phone enrichment as paid add-ons; built for agents, official CLI.
- Access: MCP, CLI, API, Dataset, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations · live data (fetched at request time)
- Reviews: 4.4/5 (B) across 15 reviews on Product Hunt
- Results:
  - People Data: #9 of 24, overall 2.8 B; Profile match rate 95.9% B
  - Jobs Data: #6 of 6, overall 1.7 C; Employer coverage 83.3% D
- Not measured: Company Data, Intent Data, Technographic Data, Email Data, Phone Data

### Datagma

- Site: https://datagma.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/datagma
- Synchronous B2B enrichment over a simple REST API with pay-per-match pricing.
- Access: API, CSV, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.7/5 (A) across 7 reviews on G2
- Results:
  - People Data: #24 of 24, overall 1.4 D; Profile match rate 69.4% D
  - Company Data: #23 of 23, overall 1.4 D; Domain-to-company match rate 91.0% D
  - Email Data: #13 of 29, overall 2.7 B; Match rate 70.0% B
  - Phone Data: #12 of 24, overall 2.7 B; Match rate 65.3% B

### Diffbot

- Site: https://diffbot.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/diffbot
- Web-scale Knowledge Graph built by crawling the public web: Enhance matches people and organizations, DQL searches entities including job posts, with an optional re-crawl of sources.
- Access: MCP, CLI, API, Dataset, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.9/5 (A) across 29 reviews on G2
- Results:
  - People Data: #14 of 24, overall 2.3 C; Profile match rate 85.0% C
  - Company Data: #10 of 23, overall 2.9 B; Domain-to-company match rate 99.0% B
- Not measured: Jobs Data, Technographic Data

### Enrich.so

- Site: https://enrich.so · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/enrich-so
- Credit-based enrichment API for work emails, phone numbers and reverse email lookup to a professional profile, with a lead finder and an MCP server.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks
- Results:
  - People Data: #18 of 24, overall 2.2 C; Profile match rate 13.3% D
  - Email Data: #11 of 29, overall 2.9 B; Match rate 68.3% C
  - Phone Data: #17 of 24, overall 2.3 C; Match rate 46.9% C

### Fiber AI

- Site: https://fiber.ai · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/fiber-ai
- B2B search and enrichment API with waterfall contact reveal, job-posting search and live LinkedIn profile and company fetch, over REST, official SDKs and MCP.
- Access: MCP, API, Dataset, CSV, Batch, Webhooks · live data (fetched at request time)
- Results:
  - People Data: #10 of 24, overall 2.8 B; Profile match rate 95.9% B
  - Company Data: #7 of 23, overall 3.1 B; Domain-to-company match rate 100.0% A
  - Technographic Data: #10 of 10, overall 1.1 D; Coverage 83.0% D
  - Email Data: #16 of 29, overall 2.6 B; Match rate 77.6% B
  - Phone Data: #18 of 24, overall 2.3 C; Match rate 46.9% C
  - Live Profile Data: #3 of 5, overall 2.8 B; Current-job accuracy 93.1% B
- Not measured: Jobs Data

### Findymail

- Site: https://findymail.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/findymail
- Work-email finder and verifier focused on deliverability, with United States phone finding; commonly paired with LinkedIn / Sales Navigator workflows.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.9/5 (A) across 64 reviews on G2, Capterra
- Results:
  - Company Data: #18 of 23, overall 1.9 C; Domain-to-company match rate 98.0% C
  - Technographic Data: #9 of 10, overall 1.5 C; Coverage 39.0% D
  - Email Data: #2 of 29, overall 3.6 A; Match rate 86.7% A
  - Phone Data: #8 of 24, overall 2.8 B; Match rate 51.0% C
- Not measured: People Data, Intent Data

### Forager

- Site: https://forager.ai · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/forager
- People, organisation and job-post APIs for sourcing and talent intelligence, with contact reveal.
- Access: API, Dataset, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 5/5 (A) across 1 reviews on G2
- Results:
  - People Data: #8 of 24, overall 2.9 B; Profile match rate 95.9% B
  - Technographic Data: #5 of 10, overall 2.9 B; Coverage 95.0% B
  - Email Data: #28 of 29, overall 1.4 D; Match rate 4.1% D
  - Phone Data: #19 of 24, overall 2.3 C; Match rate 42.9% D
- Not measured: Company Data, Jobs Data

### FullEnrich

- Site: https://fullenrich.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/fullenrich
- Waterfall contact enrichment aggregating 25+ sources for email and mobile, with reverse email lookup.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.8/5 (A) across 263 reviews on G2, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - Email Data: #4 of 29, overall 3.3 B; Match rate 96.2% A
  - Phone Data: #1 of 24, overall 3.6 A; Match rate 83.7% A
- Not measured: People Data, Company Data

### GetLeads

- Site: https://getleads.io · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/getleads
- B2B contact database of 478M+ verified contacts and enrichment built for AI agents: REST API and MCP, no dashboard.
- Access: MCP, CLI, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks
- Reviews: 5/5 (A) across 5 reviews on G2, Capterra
- Results:
  - People Data: #22 of 24, overall 2.1 C; Profile match rate 66.7% D
  - Email Data: #22 of 29, overall 2.2 C; Match rate 46.7% D
  - Phone Data: #21 of 24, overall 1.6 C; Match rate 36.7% D
- Not measured: Company Data, Intent Data, Technographic Data

### HarvestAPI

- Site: https://harvestapi.io · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/harvestapi
- Pay-as-you-go LinkedIn scraping API: live profiles, companies, jobs, posts and lead search without cookies, with optional email search on a profile. Also sold as Apify actors.
- Access: API · live data (fetched at request time)
- Results:
  - Jobs Data: #3 of 6, overall 2.7 B; Employer coverage 95.0% B
  - Live Profile Data: #2 of 5, overall 3.4 B; Current-job accuracy 93.1% B
- Not measured: People Data, Company Data, Email Data

### Hunter.io

- Site: https://hunter.io · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/hunter
- Email finding, verification and domain search, extended to leads and companies; bulk CSV and official MCP.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.5/5 (B) across 1,382 reviews on G2, Capterra, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - People Data: #15 of 24, overall 2.3 C; Profile match rate 44.9% D
  - Company Data: #5 of 23, overall 3.3 B; Domain-to-company match rate 100.0% A
  - Technographic Data: #3 of 10, overall 3.2 B; Coverage 95.0% B
  - Email Data: #9 of 29, overall 2.9 B; Match rate 75.0% B
- Not measured: Intent Data

### Icypeas

- Site: https://icypeas.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/icypeas
- Contact data and enrichment API: email discovery, verification, reverse lookup, find-people and bulk.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 5/5 (A) across 1 reviews on G2
- Results:
  - People Data: #12 of 24, overall 2.4 C; Profile match rate 83.7% D
  - Company Data: #16 of 23, overall 2.0 C; Domain-to-company match rate 97.0% C
  - Email Data: #7 of 29, overall 3.0 B; Match rate 68.3% C

### LeadIQ

- Site: https://leadiq.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/leadiq
- Prospecting platform built around a Chrome extension: verified work emails and mobile numbers, people and company search with technographics, job-change tracking, a GraphQL API and an MCP connector on shared universal credits.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.2/5 (B) across 1,269 reviews on G2, Capterra, Chrome Web Store, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - Company Data: #17 of 23, overall 2.0 C; Domain-to-company match rate 95.3% D
  - Technographic Data: #6 of 10, overall 2.1 C; Coverage 93.8% C
  - Email Data: #17 of 29, overall 2.5 B; Match rate 78.3% B
  - Phone Data: #7 of 24, overall 2.8 B; Match rate 83.7% A
- Not measured: People Data

### LeadMagic

- Site: https://leadmagic.io · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/leadmagic
- API-first B2B enrichment for GTM engineers and agents: REST, CLI, MCP and CSV across people, company, jobs, intent and technographics.
- Access: MCP, CLI, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.3/5 (B) across 19 reviews on G2
- Results:
  - People Data: #21 of 24, overall 2.1 C; Profile match rate 83.7% D
  - Company Data: #22 of 23, overall 1.6 C; Domain-to-company match rate 92.0% D
  - Jobs Data: #4 of 6, overall 2.1 C; Employer coverage 85.0% C
  - Email Data: #12 of 29, overall 2.8 B; Match rate 60.0% C
  - Phone Data: #16 of 24, overall 2.5 B; Match rate 57.1% C
- Not measured: Intent Data, Technographic Data

### Lusha

- Site: https://lusha.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/lusha
- Sales intelligence with contact and company data, enrichment, signals and recommendations; extension and API v3.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.2/5 (B) across 2,066 reviews on G2, Capterra
- Results:
  - People Data: #23 of 24, overall 1.8 C; Profile match rate 89.8% C
  - Company Data: #12 of 23, overall 2.5 B; Domain-to-company match rate 99.0% B
  - Email Data: #18 of 29, overall 2.5 B; Match rate 71.7% B
  - Phone Data: #6 of 24, overall 2.9 B; Match rate 81.6% B
- Not measured: Intent Data, Technographic Data

### People Data Labs

- Site: https://peopledatalabs.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/people-data-labs
- Dataset-first people, company and job-posting data: search / enrichment APIs, batch CSV enrichment and licensed datasets.
- Access: API, CSV, Dataset, Batch, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.3/5 (B) across 17 reviews on G2
- Results:
  - People Data: #13 of 24, overall 2.3 C; Profile match rate 95.9% B
  - Company Data: #8 of 23, overall 3.0 B; Domain-to-company match rate 100.0% A
  - Email Data: #20 of 29, overall 2.3 C; Match rate 69.4% B
  - Phone Data: #15 of 24, overall 2.5 B; Match rate 59.2% C
- Not measured: Jobs Data, Technographic Data

### Prospeo

- Site: https://prospeo.io · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/prospeo
- Contact data, email verification and enrichment for outbound via API, bulk endpoints and MCP.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Batch, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.7/5 (A) across 1,000 reviews on G2, Capterra
- Results:
  - People Data: #3 of 24, overall 3.2 B; Profile match rate 98.0% A
  - Company Data: #9 of 23, overall 2.9 B; Domain-to-company match rate 100.0% A
  - Technographic Data: #4 of 10, overall 3.1 B; Coverage 94.0% B
  - Email Data: #23 of 29, overall 2.1 C; Match rate 61.7% C
  - Phone Data: #11 of 24, overall 2.7 B; Match rate 71.4% B
- Not measured: Intent Data

### QuickEnrich

- Site: https://quickenrich.io · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/quickenrich
- Email and mobile finder built from crawled company websites, maps listings and public profiles, with a metered API or a flat unlimited API plan.
- Access: API, CSV
- Results:
  - Email Data: #25 of 29, overall 1.9 C; Match rate 53.3% D
  - Phone Data: #22 of 24, overall 1.6 C; Match rate 24.5% D
- Not measured: Company Data

### Reverse Contact

- Site: https://reversecontact.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/reverse-contact
- Data-first, agent-ready people and company search / enrichment with live B2B social profiles, email→profile and domain→company resolution, and a validation-first email waterfall. API, CLI and MCP.
- Access: MCP, CLI, API, Dataset, CSV, Webhooks, Integrations · live data (fetched at request time)
- Reviews: 4.7/5 (A) across 181 reviews on G2, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - People Data: #1 of 24, overall 3.6 A; Profile match rate 98.0% A
  - Company Data: #13 of 23, overall 2.5 B; Domain-to-company match rate 97.0% C
  - Email Data: #5 of 29, overall 3.2 B; Match rate 98.3% A
  - Phone Data: #13 of 24, overall 2.6 B; Match rate 77.6% B
  - Live Profile Data: #1 of 5, overall 3.7 A; Current-job accuracy 95.0% A
- Not measured: Jobs Data, Technographic Data

### RocketReach

- Site: https://rocketreach.co · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/rocketreach
- Contact lookup platform for verified work and personal emails and phone numbers, with people and company search, technographics and intent topics.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.4/5 (B) across 1,385 reviews on G2, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - People Data: #19 of 24, overall 2.1 C; Profile match rate 91.8% C
  - Company Data: #14 of 23, overall 2.4 C; Domain-to-company match rate 98.0% C
  - Email Data: #21 of 29, overall 2.3 C; Match rate 63.3% C
  - Phone Data: #4 of 24, overall 3.3 B; Match rate 71.4% B
- Not measured: Intent Data, Technographic Data

### Snov.io

- Site: https://snov.io · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/snov
- Email outreach platform with finder, verifier, bulk verification, phone enrichment and an enrichment API.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.5/5 (B) across 736 reviews on G2, Capterra, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - People Data: #17 of 24, overall 2.2 C; Profile match rate 83.7% D
  - Email Data: #26 of 29, overall 1.8 C; Match rate 43.3% D
  - Phone Data: #2 of 24, overall 3.4 B; Match rate 91.8% A
- Not measured: Company Data

### Surfe

- Site: https://surfe.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/surfe
- Sales intelligence platform cascading emails and mobiles across 15+ providers, with people and company search, CRM sync, REST API and a native MCP server.
- Access: MCP, API, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.4/5 (B) across 69 reviews on Chrome Web Store, Product Hunt, Trustpilot
- Results:
  - Company Data: #6 of 23, overall 3.3 B; Domain-to-company match rate 100.0% A
  - Email Data: #1 of 29, overall 3.9 A; Match rate 90.0% A
- Not measured: People Data, Phone Data

### Wiza

- Site: https://wiza.co · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/wiza
- LinkedIn-centric contact enrichment from a profile URL, with work-email verification; API, webhooks and MCP.
- Access: MCP, API, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.5/5 (B) across 1,290 reviews on G2, Capterra, Product Hunt
- Results:
  - People Data: #7 of 24, overall 3.0 B; Profile match rate 98.0% A
  - Company Data: #2 of 23, overall 3.4 B; Domain-to-company match rate 100.0% A
  - Email Data: #8 of 29, overall 2.9 B; Match rate 81.6% B
  - Phone Data: #10 of 24, overall 2.7 B; Match rate 77.6% B

### ZoomInfo

- Site: https://zoominfo.com · Page: https://www.b2bdatabenchmarks.com/providers/zoominfo
- Enterprise GTM intelligence: contacts, companies, technographics, intent, orchestration; GTM API with OAuth 2.0.
- Access: MCP, CLI, API, Dataset, CSV, Batch, Webhooks, Integrations
- Reviews: 4.5/5 (B) across 9,460 reviews on G2, Capterra
- Results:
  - Email Data: #29 of 29, overall 1.0 D; Match rate 52.3% D
  - Phone Data: #20 of 24, overall 2.0 C; Match rate 60.2% C
- Not measured: People Data, Company Data, Intent Data, Technographic Data

## Contact

Corrections and questions: info@b2bdatabenchmarks.com.