Kaspr vs Seamless.AI
 Kaspr |  Seamless.AI | |
|---|---|---|
| Sentiment | ||
| Score | 39/100 | 13/100 |
| Rank in category | #7 | #14 |
| Rated comments | 14 | 17 |
| Best for | LinkedIn-based lookups of European prospects, one profile at a time; A secondary source for emails and mobile numbers behind a larger database | Budget-conscious reps who want a cheaper alternative to ZoomInfo and will verify data themselves |
| Skip it if | Building large lists with advanced search filters; Calling campaigns that need reliably connected mobile numbers | Teams that cannot absorb a hard-to-cancel annual contract; Buyers who need dependable email accuracy without separate verification |
| Starting price | $49/user/mo | Custom pricing |
| Pricing (vendor-stated) | Free plan with 15 B2B email, 5 phone and 5 direct email credits a month. Paid plans are per user per month: Starter shown at $49 or $65 and Business at $79 or $99 (the page does not label which is annual and which is monthly), Enterprise and Organization on request. Unused paid credits roll over; extra phone credits are sold separately. | Sales-led pricing; no public plan prices. The pricing page asks how many contacts you need per month and your company size before quoting, and offers free sign-up and competitor switch discounts. |
Independent discussion is modest: about 14 first-hand, non-promotional comments. Users mostly like it as a quick LinkedIn extension for pulling emails and mobiles one profile at a time, especially for European and French prospects, and as a cheaper alternative or backup to bigger databases; the trade-offs are a narrower database and weaker search than Apollo and phone numbers that are sometimes wrong or disconnected. A large share of the remaining mentions were promotional, mostly accounts steering Kaspr users to Datagma, FullEnrich or other tools, and the complaints about Kaspr's pricing at volume appeared only inside those pitches, so they are not counted here.
Users like
- Rated well for European contacts, including the French market; one user calls it their favourite for the EU while admitting they have no view on US quality[1][2][3][4]
- The Chrome extension pulls an email or mobile straight from a LinkedIn or Sales Navigator profile, which suits prospecting one person at a time[1][2][3]
- Works as a backup source for emails and phones behind a broader database such as Apollo[1][2][3]
- Seen as more affordable than ZoomInfo or Cognism for EU contact data[1][2]
Users complain about
- Smaller database and weaker list-building filters than Apollo; a solo founder switched to Apollo after two months[1][2][3]
- Phone numbers can be wrong: one tester found it returned more mobiles than Prospeo but half were disconnected[1][2]
- One user prospecting in Europe ranks it behind Lusha and SalesPort for phone data quality[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]
Independent users are largely negative: the most common reports are inaccurate data (guessed email patterns, wrong phone numbers, bounce rates near 20%), annual contracts that are hard to exit, and aggressive sales follow-up. A minority, mostly in 2023 to 2026 comments, rate the data as good enough to replace ZoomInfo at a fraction of the price, so data quality is contested rather than settled. The corpus shows no promotional seeding, but much of it is older r/sales discussion from 2022 and 2023.
Users like
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]