BetterContact vs Lusha
 BetterContact |  Lusha | |
|---|---|---|
| Sentiment | ||
| Score | 29/100 | 43/100 |
| Rank in category | #9 | #4 |
| Rated comments | 12 | 21 |
| Best for | Waterfall email and mobile lookups on a list you already have; Teams that want multi-provider coverage without building it in Clay | Individual reps doing occasional lookups on a budget; A secondary source alongside another database; Small teams starting on a free plan |
| Skip it if | Cost-sensitive teams enriching large volumes; Lookups that start from a name and company without a LinkedIn URL | Enterprise or Fortune 500 prospecting; Large list building with fine-grained filters; Teams that cannot absorb bounces from unverified emails |
| Starting price | $15/mo | $37.45/mo |
| Pricing (vendor-stated) | Priced by credits, not seats: Starter $15/mo for 200 credits, Pro from $49/mo for 1,000 credits, Enterprise from $799/mo. An email costs 1 credit and a mobile 10, charged only when valid data is found; unused credits roll over. Annual billing gives two months free. No free plan; 50 free credits on signup. | Free plan with 40 credits per month. Paid plans per the pricing page's plan data: Starter $37.45/mo billed annually ($49.90 monthly) for 400 credits per month, Pro $52.45/mo annually ($69.90 monthly) for 600, Premium $299.95/mo annually ($399.90 monthly) for 3,400; Scale is custom. An email reveal costs 1 credit and a phone number 5. The page does not state whether prices are per user; teams above 5 users are sent to sales. No free trial beyond the free plan. |
Independent discussion is modest: about a dozen non-promotional comments carry a view, and roughly a third of all mentions were promotional, including identical copy-pasted recommendations and several replies that used a BetterContact thread to plug other tools. Users who like it say it finds emails and mobile numbers well by querying several providers, but a cluster of late-2025 comments says accuracy has slipped behind newer tools. Opinions on price are split: one recruiter rates it among the most cost-effective waterfall options, while others find it pricey enough to use only as a last resort.
Users like
- Users report good results finding both emails and mobile numbers, in single lookups or bulk uploads[1][2][3]
- Querying several providers in one call lifts email coverage above Apollo alone, and works as a simpler alternative to a Clay waterfall[1][2]
- Some users see it as good value: one recruiter names it among the most cost-effective waterfall options, and another likes the multiple verifications for the price[1][2]
Users complain about
- Long-time users say accuracy has dropped lately and speed feels behind newer tools[1][2]
- Others find it expensive: priced above single-source finders, so some teams use it only as a last resort[1][2]
- Coverage has gaps depending on region and industry, and results are mixed when you have no LinkedIn URL[1][2]
Independent users see Lusha as a budget-friendly lookup tool that some find more accurate than Apollo for emails and phone numbers, useful as a second source or for one-off lookups. The trade-off is uneven accuracy (users report invented emails, invalid numbers and roughly 50/50 hit rates), thin coverage for enterprise and EMEA work, and weak filtering and credit terms. More than half of the Reddit mentions were promotional: one cluster of comments repeats 'Lusha for accuracy, Apollo for volume' in vendor terms, and many replies to Lusha complaints exist to plug alternatives (Bookyourdata, UpLead, ContactOut, FullEnrich and others), so this rests on about 21 independent opinions, most of them brief.
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]
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]