LeadMagic vs Seamless.AI
 LeadMagic |  Seamless.AI | |
|---|---|---|
| Sentiment | ||
| Score | 68/100 | 13/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 | #14 |
| Rated comments | 21 | 17 |
| 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 | Budget-conscious reps who want a cheaper alternative to ZoomInfo and will verify data themselves |
| Skip it if | Teams that need ZoomInfo-level coverage from one source; Senders who cannot add a separate catch-all verifier | Teams that cannot absorb a hard-to-cancel annual contract; Buyers who need dependable email accuracy without separate verification |
| Starting price | $83/mo | Custom pricing |
| 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. | 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 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 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]