LeadMagic vs Lusha
 LeadMagic |  Lusha | |
|---|---|---|
| Sentiment | ||
| Score | 68/100 | 43/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 | #4 |
| Rated comments | 21 | 21 |
| Best for | Budget teams running their own enrichment waterfall; Finding work emails and mobiles for contacts scraped from Apollo or LinkedIn; A second-pass check on unknown or failed emails | Individual reps doing occasional lookups on a budget; A secondary source alongside another database; Small teams starting on a free plan |
| Skip it if | Teams that need ZoomInfo-level coverage from one source; Senders who cannot add a separate catch-all verifier | Enterprise or Fortune 500 prospecting; Large list building with fine-grained filters; Teams that cannot absorb bounces from unverified emails |
| Starting price | $83/mo | $37.45/mo |
| Pricing (vendor-stated) | Essential is $99/mo billed monthly for 5,000 credits, or $990/yr (about $83/mo); tiers run up to Ultimate at $849/mo for 100,000 credits, with Enterprise from $2,490/quarter. No free plan or free credits; a paid plan is required at signup, and failed lookups cost nothing. | 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 users describe LeadMagic as a cheap, pay-as-you-go email and mobile finder that slots into a waterfall, usually alongside Apollo or inside Clay, and that also works as a second-pass verifier. About 21 non-promotional comments carry an opinion, mostly brief and positive, centred on price and on finding emails and phones Apollo misses. The criticism is thinner but specific: one user says it has been failing them lately, and its handling of catch-all addresses is contested, with one user calling its 'valid catch-all' results unreliable and another praising its catch-all marking. Promotional comments are a smaller share than for most tools here, mostly plugs for other scrapers and verifiers plus a same-day cluster of Prospeo plugs, one of which knocks its mobile numbers.
Users like
- Cheap and pay-as-you-go; users call it the low-cost option for volume, one putting it at a tenth of Apollo's cost[1][2][3][4]
- Finds emails other sources miss, such as a contact's new address after a job change when Apollo still had the old one[1][2][3]
- Used for mobile numbers too, with users reporting better mobile coverage than Apollo[1][2][3]
- Doubles as a verifier: users run it as a second pass on unknown emails, then use its finder to replace invalid ones[1][2][3]
Users complain about
- One user says it charges for 'valid catch-all' results that are not reliable, forcing either lower coverage or a separate catch-all verifier (another user disputes this and praises its catch-all marking)[1]
- Consistency is questioned: one user says it has been failing them recently[1]
- Lacks the phones and emails that big databases like ZoomInfo collect from customer CRMs, so coverage trails them[1]
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]