LeadMagic vs Wiza
 LeadMagic |  Wiza | |
|---|---|---|
| Sentiment | ||
| Score | 68/100 | 32/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 | #8 |
| 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 | Turning LinkedIn and Sales Navigator lists into emails; Solo sellers replacing ZoomInfo or Lusha on a budget; Teams using it as one source inside a Clay stack |
| Skip it if | Teams that need ZoomInfo-level coverage from one source; Senders who cannot add a separate catch-all verifier | High-volume teams watching cost per contact; Cold-calling teams that need the best mobile number coverage |
| Starting price | $83/mo | $49/user/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 20 emails and 5 phone numbers. Monthly plans per user: Starter $49, Email $99, Email + Phone $199, with per-reveal overage fees. Annual plans with unlimited reveals: Email $83/mo ($990/yr) and Email + Phone $166/mo ($1,990/yr) per user. Team plan (3+ users) is custom and annual. |
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]
About half of the 100 Reddit comments mentioning Wiza were promotional, including a cluster of accounts in early 2025 repeating the same Sales Navigator talking points and many comments plugging rival tools, so those are excluded. Among roughly 20 independent opinions, Wiza is seen as a sensible way to turn LinkedIn and Sales Navigator lists into emails, and a few users report lower bounce rates or better hit rates than Apollo, ZoomInfo or Lusha. The trade-off is cost and consistency: several users call email accuracy hit or miss, others say credits get expensive at volume, and waterfall tools reportedly find more contacts, especially mobile numbers.
Users like
- A natural fit when LinkedIn or Sales Navigator is the main prospect source[1][2][3]
- Some users report the lowest bounce rate among tools they tested, or a better hit rate than ZoomInfo, Lusha or Apollo[1][2][3]
- Much cheaper than paying for ZoomInfo when you are a solo seller[1][2]
- Holds up as one data source in a Clay-based stack[1][2]
Users complain about
- Email accuracy is inconsistent: users report hit-or-miss results, bouncing emails, and addresses at companies the prospect no longer works for[1][2][3][4]
- Gets expensive at volume: credits cost more per contact than Findymail, and pulling thousands of verified emails at once adds up[1][2][3]
- Waterfall tools that query many providers find more contacts, and reportedly hit better on mobile numbers[1][2]
- Its own prospect database is seen as static profile data that lags LinkedIn[1][2]