Leadfeeder (Dealfront) vs RB2B
 Leadfeeder (Dealfront) |  RB2B | |
|---|---|---|
| Sentiment | ||
| Score | 45/100 | 10/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 | #4 |
| Rated comments | 9 | 19 |
| Best for | B2B teams with steady website traffic that want to see which companies visit; European and DACH teams identifying German company traffic | US-focused teams with steady site traffic that want named visitors and LinkedIn profiles to feed ABM or retargeting; Teams that treat a visit as one signal among several rather than a reason to cold call |
| Skip it if | Low-traffic sites; Teams that need to know the individual visitor rather than the company | EU-facing or compliance-sensitive companies; Teams expecting most visitors to resolve to accurate, in-ICP, ready-to-contact buyers; Low-traffic sites |
| Starting price | €79/mo | $79/mo |
| Pricing (vendor-stated) | Free Lite plan (up to 100 identified companies a month, 7 days of history). Paid Discover plan from €79/mo billed annually (€113 billed monthly); Activate from €369/mo, Scale from €599/mo billed annually, Enterprise custom. 14-day free trial, no card needed. dealfront.com/pricing redirects to Leadfeeder's pricing page. | Free plan forever with 150 company-level resolutions/mo (no person-level ID or emails); Starter $79/mo for 300 resolutions; Pro from $149/mo adds business emails and integrations; Pro+ from $199/mo. Prices listed monthly; 7-day full-featured trial, no card required. |
Nine independent users give an opinion, and most rate Leadfeeder's core job well: company-level website visitor identification is called solid, one user ranks it far above person-level identification tools, and a DACH team reports usable German leads within its first week. The criticisms are price that climbs with visitor volume, false positives, and little value until a site has real traffic. Promotion dominates: 55 of 100 comments were set aside, led by a large cluster of near-identical "tried Leadfeeder first, then switched to Leadinfo" stories from many accounts, plus repeated LeadsNavi, LiSeller, Leado and Pulse for Reddit plugs, so most complaints about Leadfeeder's data and CRM sync in the corpus could not be used.
Users like
- Company-level website visitor identification is solid for spotting which accounts visit; one user rated it far above person-level identification tools[1][2][3][4]
- Surfaces German and DACH companies from website traffic that Apollo lacks; one team got usable leads within its first week[1]
- In one user's side-by-side test it returned identified companies where RB2B returned none, though results across tools barely overlapped[1]
Of 19 independent comments with a first-hand or clear opinion, 13 are negative, 3 mixed and 3 positive. The recurring complaint is accuracy: users report identifying only a small share of visitors, matches they call inaccurate or non-ICP, and visit data that rarely turns into pipeline; the satisfied users treat it as a feed of US LinkedIn profiles for ABM and retargeting, not a ready-to-call list. 24 of the 100 comments were promotional, mostly replies pitching rival visitor-ID or outbound tools (Kwin, Midbound, b2bsignals, Aimdoc, Botdog and others) plus a cluster of near-identical stack lists plugging the same enrichment and sequencing tools.
Users like
Users complain about
- Accuracy is the dominant complaint: users call the data very inaccurate, estimate it identifies 10% to 20% of traffic or 60-70% of matches correctly, and one saw no results at all where another tool did[1][2][3][4][5][6]
- Identified visitors are often outside the ICP, and the tool says nothing about whether a visitor is a real lead or what they wanted[1][2][3]
- Visit data rarely converts: users found person-level alerts a waste of time, one team pulled RB2B retargeting spend after five weeks with nothing converting, and another didn't find it useful[1][2][3][4]
- Privacy compliance is a concern, especially for European traffic[1][2]