Every B2B data vendor advertises high accuracy on its own database, and none of those figures is independently verifiable. That matters more here than in any other software category, because accuracy is the product: a contact list that is 78% correct and one that is 91% correct cost the same to buy and produce very different results.
This guide compares six platforms on what can actually be checked: how they charge, what their free tiers permit, how their data is sourced, and what compliance documentation they publish. Figures come from vendor pages and current analysis. Where pricing is not published, that is stated rather than estimated.
The accuracy problem
Treat vendor accuracy claims as marketing. They are measured on the vendor’s own sample, under undisclosed conditions, and every provider in this category claims a high number.
Independent testing gives a more useful picture. One comparison published in 2026, testing 500 mixed contacts, reported email accuracy of roughly 88% for a waterfall setup chaining five providers, 84% for ZoomInfo and 78% for Apollo. The pattern worth noting is not the individual figures but the structural finding: waterfall approaches that query several databases in sequence consistently outperformed single-source databases.
Accuracy also varies enormously by geography and company size. North American coverage is strong across the board; EMEA mobile numbers are where databases diverge sharply, and Apollo in particular is reported to have thin EMEA coverage with high bounce rates on non-North-American mobiles.
The practical response is to test coverage in your own territory before committing. Several vendors will provide a data sample for exactly this purpose, and a free tier serves the same function.
Where the data comes from, and why it matters
Buying contact data carries legal obligations that software purchases usually do not, particularly for outbound into the EU and UK.
The distinctions that matter are whether a provider maintains a GDPR-notified database, whether it screens against do-not-call registries, and whether compliance is a default or something you configure. Current analysis is direct on this: Cognism publishes GDPR documentation and DPAs by default, while ZoomInfo, Apollo and Lusha offer GDPR-compliant configurations that you have to opt into.
Cognism is documented as screening automatically against do-not-call registries in 15 countries, maintaining a fully GDPR-notified database, holding ISO 27001, ISO 27701 and SOC 2 Type II certifications, and being registered as a data broker with the California Attorney General. Apollo holds ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II.
One further distinction worth understanding: some platforms enrich their database using data contributed by their own users, and some do not. If that matters to your legal team, ask directly. Whichever vendor you choose, request the DPA before signing.
All-in-one database and outreach
1. Apollo.io
Apollo combines a large contact database with sequencing, dialling and CRM sync, which is why it is the common starting point for small teams: one bill instead of three.
Its free plan is the most generous here, reported at 900 credits a year with two sequences, though other sources describe the ongoing free tier in monthly terms, so check what your account actually shows. Paid pricing is reported from around $49 per user per month at the entry tier, with higher tiers reported at $59, $99 and $149 depending on source and plan naming.
Two documented limitations: export credit caps are reported to run out faster than teams expect at volume, and EMEA coverage is weaker than its North American data.
Suits: startups and SMB teams selling into North America who want database and outreach from one vendor.
2. ZoomInfo
ZoomInfo is the enterprise option, with the deepest US database, org charts, technographics and buyer intent signals. Reported coverage includes roughly 500 million contacts and 135 million verified phone numbers.
Pricing is not self-serve. Reported platform fees start around $15,000 per year, with some sources citing $14,995 and others a $15,000 to $25,000 range. There is no free plan. Contracts are annual.
Suits: enterprise sales organisations that need intent data and firmographic depth, with budget for an annual contract.
Enrichment orchestration
3. Clay
Clay is not a database. It is an orchestration layer that queries many providers in sequence — commonly described as waterfall enrichment across 100 or more sources — and keeps the first valid result. That is the structural reason it outperformed single-source databases in the independent testing cited above.
Reported pricing starts between roughly $149 and $185 a month depending on source, with a free tier offering limited credits. The consistent caveat across reviews is that Clay expects RevOps capability: it is a platform for building enrichment workflows, not a list you download.
Suits: agencies and RevOps teams who need maximum match rates and have someone to build the workflows.
Compliance-first data
4. Cognism
Cognism is built around European coverage and compliance rather than raw database size. Its phone-verified mobile product is the differentiator for teams doing cold calling into the UK and EU, where connect rates and compliance exposure both matter.
There is no free plan and no self-serve path. Its pricing page lists Standard and Pro tiers both marked talk-to-sales, each including five seats by default, sold on annual contracts with custom pricing. Bombora intent data is bundled into Pro and available as an add-on on Standard. Cognism will provide a free data sample so you can test territory coverage before committing, which is the sensible way to evaluate it.
Note that Cognism publishes an accuracy figure for its phone-verified data. As with every vendor claim in this category, treat it as a claim rather than an independent result.
Suits: outbound teams selling into Europe, and any organisation where compliance documentation is a procurement requirement.
Lightweight lookup
5. Lusha
Lusha is the self-serve option built around a browser extension: you pull contact details while browsing LinkedIn or a company site, without switching into a separate prospecting tool.
Its pricing is published, which is unusual in this category. Reported structure is a free plan with 40 credits a month on a single seat, then roughly $49.90, $69.90 and $399.90 a month on annual billing, priced per plan with seats included rather than per user. Other sources report a $22 per user per month entry point, so confirm which structure applies to your region.
The documented limitation is that credit-based pricing scales poorly past a few hundred contacts a month, and the database is smaller than the enterprise platforms.
Suits: individual reps and small teams doing moderate-volume lookups.
Cold email delivery
6. Instantly
Instantly solves a different problem from the five above: not finding contacts, but getting mail to land. It handles multiple sending accounts, warm-up and deliverability optimisation for cold outreach at volume.
Pairing it with a data provider is the common pattern, since a database platform’s built-in sequencer typically does less on deliverability. This guide could not verify Instantly’s current tier pricing from a source it could confirm, so check the vendor page.
Worth stating plainly: deliverability tooling improves the odds that mail arrives. It does not make unsolicited outreach compliant, and the obligations in the section above still apply.
Suits: teams running cold email at volume who already have a data source.
Comparison
Reported figures from vendor pages and current analysis. Where pricing is not published, the table says so.
| Tool | Type | Free tier | Entry pricing | Pricing public? | Compliance posture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apollo.io | Database + outreach | Yes, reported 900 credits/yr | ~$49/user/mo | Yes | ISO 27001, SOC 2; GDPR opt-in |
| ZoomInfo | Enterprise database | None | ~$15,000+/year | No, sales-led | GDPR configurable |
| Clay | Waterfall enrichment | Limited credits | ~$149–185/mo | Yes | Depends on chained providers |
| Cognism | Compliance-first data | None; data sample offered | Custom, 5 seats default | No, talk to sales | GDPR-notified, DNC in 15 countries |
| Lusha | Browser lookup | Yes, ~40 credits/mo | ~$49.90/mo, or ~$22/user reported | Yes | Certifications held; GDPR opt-in |
| Instantly | Cold email delivery | Trial | Not verified here | Partly | Not a data provider |
There is no accuracy column. Vendor-published figures are self-measured, and the independent testing referenced above covered a single 500-contact sample rather than a standing benchmark.
Credits are the real cost
Almost everything here bills by credit, and the headline seat price rarely reflects what you will spend.
Three patterns to check before subscribing. Export credits are often capped annually rather than monthly, so a heavy month can exhaust a year’s allowance. Credits are consumed on lookups that fail on some platforms, which means poor coverage in your territory costs you twice. And enrichment platforms charge per provider queried, so a waterfall that checks five sources for one contact is not one credit.
Work out your monthly contact volume first, then compare the tier that covers it rather than the entry price.
How to choose
Selling into North America on a small budget: a self-serve platform with a free tier lets you test coverage before paying.
Selling into the EU or UK: compliance posture and EMEA mobile coverage should decide this, not database size.
Coverage is your bottleneck: waterfall enrichment beat single-source databases in independent testing, at the cost of setup complexity.
You need intent data and org charts: that is enterprise territory, with annual contracts and no free evaluation.
Your problem is deliverability, not data: a sending platform is a separate purchase from a database.
Whatever you shortlist, test your own territory first and request the DPA before signing. Once leads are in the pipeline, our guide to AI CRM tools covers how AI is billed on the CRM side.
Related guides
- Best AI CRM Tools in 2026
- Best AI Email Assistants in 2026
- Best AI Marketing Automation Tools in 2026
- Best AI Advertising Tools in 2026
- Best AI Social Media Tools in 2026
- Best AI Workflow Automation Tools in 2026
Frequently asked questions
How accurate is B2B contact data?
Less accurate than vendors claim, and it varies by region. Independent testing on a 500-contact sample in 2026 reported email accuracy around 88% for a five-provider waterfall, 84% for ZoomInfo and 78% for Apollo. Test your own territory before committing.
Which tools have a genuine free plan?
Apollo and Lusha both offer ongoing free tiers, with Apollo’s reported as the more generous. Clay offers limited free credits. ZoomInfo and Cognism have no free plan, though Cognism will provide a data sample for territory testing.
Is buying B2B contact data legal?
It depends on jurisdiction and how the data was sourced. Providers differ on whether GDPR compliance is a default or a configuration, and on do-not-call screening. Request the DPA before signing and take proper advice for regulated outbound. This is general information, not legal advice.
Why does ZoomInfo cost so much more?
It is sold as an annual enterprise contract with platform fees reported from around $15,000 a year, buying database depth, intent data and org charts rather than contact lookups. There is no self-serve tier.
What is waterfall enrichment?
Querying several data providers in sequence and keeping the first valid result, rather than relying on one database. Independent testing found it consistently beat single-source providers on email accuracy, at the cost of setup complexity and per-provider credit consumption.
Conclusion
Choose on geography, compliance and credit economics rather than on advertised accuracy, because accuracy claims in this category are self-reported and the independent evidence suggests real-world rates sit meaningfully below them.
For North American outbound on a budget, a self-serve platform with a free tier lets you verify coverage before paying. For European outbound, compliance posture and mobile coverage matter more than database size. If match rates are the bottleneck, waterfall enrichment outperformed single sources in testing. And in every case, run a sample against your own territory first — it is the only accuracy measurement that applies to you.
