Best B2B Data & Enrichment Tools (October 2026)

What users like

• Budget friendly, with free credits that make it easy to start and combine with Apollo^[1][2][3]
• Some users find its emails and numbers more accurate than Apollo's or ZoomInfo's, though it returns fewer results^[1][2][3][4]
• Phone numbers, including mobiles, work fairly well for some teams despite occasional misses^[1][2]
• Useful as one of two sources: users pair it with Apollo, and one found it surfaced far more decision makers than Apollo for the same companies^[1][2][3]

What users complain about

• Accuracy is unreliable for some: users report about 50/50 accuracy, invalid numbers that hurt domains, and one domain owner traced made-up email addresses sent to his company back to Lusha^[1][2][3][4]
• Falls short against premium providers: it lost to ZoomInfo and Cognism in US and EMEA tests and was not enough for Fortune 500 IT prospecting^[1][2][3]
• Filtering and user experience are weak, and one user calls the UX horrible enough to make it 2 to 3 times more expensive in practice^[1]
• Credit terms frustrate users: no refunds for bad data, CRM saving gated on the first paid tier, and a search limit that appeared without notice^[1][2]
• Coverage gaps: when Lusha lacks a number, other tools often have one^[1]

Best for

• Individual reps doing occasional lookups on a budget
• A secondary source alongside another database
• Small teams starting on a free plan

Skip it if

• Enterprise or Fortune 500 prospecting
• Large list building with fine-grained filters
• Teams that cannot absorb bounces from unverified emails

What users like

• Teams that moved from Seamless, Slintel or Apollo report noticeably more accurate and thorough data, and one team returned to ZoomInfo after trialing Seamless^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}
• Strongest for US and enterprise accounts: users call it the best fit for Fortune 500 prospecting and say calling enterprises without it leaves you stuck^[1][2][3]
• Mobile numbers are the main draw for callers; one rep gets a mobile about 75% of the time, while noting it is far from perfect^[1][2][3][4]
• Integrations add value: CRM and call-recording tie-ins surface decision makers before calls, and reps connect it to Salesforce and AI assistants for account research^[1][2]

What users complain about

• Expensive: users call it ridiculously or prohibitively priced, question the premium given its errors, advise negotiating hard, and say reps at some companies buy other tools because it is so enterprise-focused^{[1][2][3][4][5]}
• Data is still often wrong: reps report bad emails, wrong phone numbers, off-base org charts, catch-all addresses and connect rates under 1% for one team^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}
• Intent and pickup-likelihood signals are seen as unreliable: users call intent smoke and mirrors and say a 'more likely to pick up' list was still mostly cold^[1][2][3]
• Contract and sales practices draw complaints: sketchy legal language and a trigger-happy legal team at cancellation, plus persistent sales calls after prospects say no^[1][2][3][4]
• A security commenter warns that its free Community Edition reads the user's Outlook directory and uses it to build contact profiles^[1]

Best for

• Enterprise and US-focused prospecting
• Teams that cold call mobile numbers at volume
• Companies with budget for an annual contract

Skip it if

• Small teams and early-stage startups on a budget
• Teams that rely on intent data to source pipeline
• Europe-first prospecting

What users like

• Costs a fraction of ZoomInfo, and users who weigh price against quality call the data good enough for the money^{[1][2][3][4][5]}
• Several users who had both Apollo and ZoomInfo preferred Apollo overall^[1][2][3]
• Database, sequencing and dialing live in one tool, which users find simple for early-stage or low-volume outbound^[1][2][3]
• Works without major issues for some users, particularly when targeting the US^[1][2][3]

What users complain about

• Stale records: users find people who left months or years ago (one found a contact who died 20 years earlier still listed), with bounce rates around 9% even after running lists through a verifier^{[1][2][3][4][5]}
• Phone numbers are a weak spot: inactive, wrong-person or HQ switchboard numbers returned instead of no result, and one user reports half the numbers were unreliable^[1][2][3][4]
• Costs have crept up: a long-time customer's renewal tripled after a credit system change, and others say enrichment is expensive for what it returns^[1][2][3]
• Coverage thins outside the US and in some niches: it lost to ZoomInfo and Cognism in one team's US and EMEA test, and a health tech team found it missed many people after leaving ZoomInfo^[1][2][3]
• The app can feel slow, clunky and complicated, and one user says it fragments work across contact, sequence and notes views^[1][2][3]

Best for

• Budget-conscious teams prospecting into the US
• Small teams that want data and sequencing in one tool
• Building large lists that will be verified separately

Skip it if

• Teams that need reliable direct dials for cold calling
• Senders who cannot run a separate verification step
• Prospecting outside the US or in niche verticals

What users like

• Waterfall enrichment across many providers: users say it pulls from more sources than single databases like Apollo and fills gaps they would otherwise miss^{[1][2][3][4][5]}
• Flexible enough for custom work once someone learns it: AI account research, hiring signals, CRM imports and middleware between other tools^{[1][2][3][4][5]}
• Costs become manageable for teams that filter lists with cheap signals before enriching, or bring their own provider API keys instead of paying Clay's data markup^[1][2][3]

What users complain about

• Expensive: credits burn quickly because it can do so much, and one team cites a $26k quote for what it considered entry-level work^{[1][2][3][4][5]}
• The 2026 pricing change bills every workflow step, HTTP call and CRM push as an action, which users say makes costs hard to predict at agency scale^[1][2]
• Steep learning curve: every use case has to be built by hand, and some teams say they would need to hire someone just to run it^[1][2][3][4]
• Economics weaken at high volume: users who run it as a bulk data provider find it expensive and suggest reserving it for a filtered or top-priority slice of the list^[1][2]
• Some find it clunky and slow; one trial user could not connect it to HubSpot, which Clay acknowledged as a known issue at the time^[1][2]

Best for

• RevOps or GTM engineers who will build and maintain custom enrichment workflows
• Waterfall enrichment across several data providers
• Targeted, lower-volume lists where data quality matters more than cost per row

Skip it if

• Teams that just want a contact database with no setup
• High-volume bulk enrichment on a tight budget
• Agencies that need predictable per-client costs

What users like

• Users who run several providers single it out for UK and European data, where one team found it beat ZoomInfo's international data^{[1][2][3][4][5]}
• Mobile numbers are a highlight: users rate them above ZoomInfo and other tools, and one says it will source and phone-verify a missing number on request^[1][2][3]
• Easier to do business with than ZoomInfo: users cite better support, cheaper pricing and less painful sales and retention practices^[1][2]

What users complain about

• Pricing is opaque and can rise after signing: no prices on the site, a drastic change at renewal, and a low base price paired with a low export threshold that pushes buyers into extra credits^[1][2]
• Weaker outside Europe: one user found Apollo plus Lusha beat it on email coverage in North America and Europe, another says it is weak in the public sector, and one recruiter claimed in 2025 that it had pulled back from the US^[1][2][3]
• A minority found the data poor, rating it trash or worse than a cheaper tool, and a Dutch team found Lusha's database larger and more accurate^[1][2][3][4]
• More manual and less feature-rich than ZoomInfo, with some integration issues reported^[1][2]

Best for

• Teams prospecting into the UK and Europe
• Cold callers who need European mobile numbers
• Mid-market teams leaving ZoomInfo's contract terms

Skip it if

• US-only prospecting
• Small teams that need transparent self-serve pricing

What users like

• Works as a backup or second source: users report it adds real hits in a waterfall instead of repeating what Apollo or Lusha already missed^[1][2][3]
• Holds up for phone numbers and overall coverage; a few users rank its contact data among the better options^[1][2][3]

What users complain about

• Poor value for some buyers: one says they paid too much for what they got, another calls it average at best and no better than Apollo, with transactional customer service^[1][2][3]
• People listed in its database report that opt-out requests failed or went unanswered until they escalated, and one links a $1.6M Illinois privacy class-action settlement; others say a GDPR request worked within days^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Best for

• Small teams that need a backup source for emails and phone numbers
• Filling gaps in a multi-provider enrichment waterfall

Skip it if

• Buyers expecting one provider to cover all their enrichment
• Teams sensitive to data-subject complaints and opt-out friction

What users like

• Some users rate the data as comparable to ZoomInfo at a far lower price; one cut their annual spend by about $16k after switching^[1][2]
• Users who stick with it find it worth the money for finding mobile numbers, and the free trial plus referral credits let reps test it first^[1][2]

What users complain about

• Data accuracy is the main complaint: emails guessed from naming conventions, wrong phone numbers, and one two-year customer reporting 18 to 23% bounce rates^{[1][2][3][4][5]}
• Annual contracts with no cancellation; buyers describe being unable to exit and continuing to receive bills^[1][2][3]
• Aggressive sales outreach and weak support once the deal is signed; one person says the company cold called them about 20 times after removal requests^[1][2][3][4]
• Teams that tested it against ZoomInfo went back to ZoomInfo, citing more accurate and thorough data^[1][2]
• Pricey for an individual rep; one user who likes it for mobile numbers balks at about $1,300 a year^[1][2]

Best for

• Budget-conscious reps who want a cheaper alternative to ZoomInfo and will verify data themselves

Skip it if

• Teams that cannot absorb a hard-to-cancel annual contract
• Buyers who need dependable email accuracy without separate verification

What users like

• Holds up in multi-source stacks: one team uses it as its main email and mobile source, another gets better verified-email results stacking it with a bounce check^[1][2]

What users complain about

• One user says a changed login method locked them out, the cancellation was not processed in time, and support refused a refund^[1]
• Several users accuse Prospeo of promoting itself on Reddit through fake or planted accounts, which makes much of the public praise hard to trust^[1][2][3]

Best for

• Teams that will test it as one source alongside other finders

Skip it if

• Buyers who want to rely on Reddit testimonials to judge accuracy

What users like

• Email results are rated accurate, with personal email addresses a particular strength^[1][2]
• Helps recruiters find hard-to-reach passive candidates^[1]
• Finds an email for roughly 70 to 75 percent of contacts, which one user calls typical for the category^[1]

What users complain about

• Phone coverage was poor for SaaS contacts in one user's experience (another user's early mobile trial was positive, so this is unsettled)^[1]
• Has grown from a lookup tool into a broader sales platform; a user who only needed LinkedIn lookups found it overkill and left^[1]
• People listed in its database report opt-out requests being ignored twice before an escalated email got them removed^[1]

Best for

• Recruiters who need personal email addresses
• Reaching hard-to-find passive candidates

Skip it if

• Phone-first outbound into SaaS companies
• Users who only want a simple LinkedIn lookup

What users like

• Reliable for the classic use: take a name from LinkedIn and get the person's work email or the company's email pattern^[1][2][3][4]
• Doubles as an email verifier, which users run before sending to protect their domain from bounces^[1][2]

What users complain about

• Weak on bulk lists: one buyer says only about 7% of an uploaded list came back usable after hours of manual cleanup, and another found too few verified addresses in its database and the interface clunky^[1][2]
• Two dissatisfied buyers say refund requests were refused; one was offered credits instead and filed a chargeback^[1][2]

Best for

• Finding the work email of a specific, already-identified person
• Checking a company's email pattern and verifying addresses before sending

Skip it if

• Bulk enrichment of large uploaded lists
• Buyers who need a large contact database rather than an email finder

What users like

• Works well as a second pass on top of a primary database such as Apollo or Lusha, catching invalid emails and phone numbers and leaving less list triage^[1][2][3]
• One builder of outreach workflows says it often finds more mobile numbers than Wiza^[1]

What users complain about

• Coverage is limited; users say broader databases like Apollo or Lusha return more records^[1][2]
• Its higher accuracy partly comes from only showing results that survive verification, not from stronger underlying data; validating a broader database can reach similar bounce rates^[1][2]

Best for

• Teams adding a verification and gap-fill layer on top of an existing database
• Outbound where deliverability matters more than raw coverage

Skip it if

• Teams that need maximum coverage from a single source

What users like

• Works for European prospects: one team found it fine while selling only in Europe, and another rates it for GDPR-conscious EU outreach^[1][2]
• Records are seen as fresher than Apollo's, even though the pool is smaller^[1]
• Emails and phone numbers are usable enough to serve as a backup source behind another tool^[1][2]
• Suits prospecting done one LinkedIn profile at a time^[1]

What users complain about

• Coverage thins out beyond Europe: a team that expanded into the US and APAC found it could not keep up^[1][2]
• Smaller database and weaker list-building filters than Apollo; a solo founder switched to Apollo after two months^[1]
• Phone numbers are sometimes wrong^[1]
• Requires installing its LinkedIn browser extension; a privacy-minded tester called the extension shady and found his never-published personal mobile in Kaspr's data^[1]

Best for

• LinkedIn-based lookups of European prospects
• A secondary source for emails and phone numbers

Skip it if

• Teams prospecting mainly in the US or APAC
• Building large lists with advanced search filters

What users like

• Email addresses are rated good, and a regular user praises the interface and integrations^[1]
• Fits workflows where LinkedIn or Sales Navigator is the main prospect source^[1][2]
• Holds up as one component of a Clay-based stack^[1]

What users complain about

• Phone numbers are unreliable: one user found numbers on his own record that were never his, and another finds other tools hit better on mobiles^[1][2]
• Draws on a narrower source than waterfall tools that query many providers in one pass^[1]
• Using it against LinkedIn carries an account-ban risk, one recruiter warns^[1]

Best for

• Email lookups from LinkedIn and Sales Navigator
• Teams already stacking tools in Clay

Skip it if

• Cold-calling teams that need reliable mobile numbers

What users like

• Users who stack it with other finders and a bounce check say it returns cleaner emails than broad databases, for less money^[1][2]
• Runs as a native action inside Clay and is one of the smaller providers Clay itself draws on, which users rate as surprisingly good^[1][2]

What users complain about

• Not a shortcut: one agency user notes it relies on the same underlying data sources as other finders, so results still hinge on verification, warmup and list hygiene^[1]

Best for

• Teams stacking several email finders behind a bounce check
• Clay users who want an email finder as a native action

Skip it if

• Buyers wanting broad, independent proof of accuracy at scale

What users like

• One user reports its email and phone data is very accurate when targeting the US^[1]

What users complain about

Best for

• Teams targeting US contacts who will run their own accuracy test

Skip it if

• Buyers who need independent user evidence before committing

What users like

• Named by an independent commenter as one of the most cost-effective waterfall enrichment options, alongside FullEnrich and Clay^[1]

What users complain about

Best for

• Low-budget waterfall email and mobile lookups, tested on your own sample first