# PeopleDataBenchmarks

> An open, reproducible benchmark of people-data APIs — people search, profile enrichment, email finding and phone enrichment. Every provider answers the same frozen test set, every raw response is published, and results are graded blind or against objective truth (email verification). Aggregated third-party reviews for every provider, with sources. No paid placement.

## Live benchmark: People Search (role + seniority + country queries)
Updated 2026-07-30 · 10 frozen queries · blind judge openai/gpt-4.1-mini · K=25.
Metric = precision of returned results (share of returned people whose current title matches the requested function + seniority in the requested country), plus field fill-rates, depth, coverage, latency.
- Crustdata: 79.1% precision · depth 25/25 · coverage 10/10 · p50 7305ms
- People Data Labs (partial run — quota hit mid-run): 100% precision on 2/10 queries
- ContactOut (partial run — quota hit mid-run): 16.7% precision on 6/10 queries
Full report: /people-search. Providers whose test account hit quota limits are labeled partial or excluded, never scored as zero.

Suites in preparation (methodology published): people-enrichment, email-enrichment, phone-enrichment.

## Aggregated third-party reviews (with sources)
- Crustdata (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/crustdata): 4.4/5 weighted across 13 platform reviews — Crustdata has a sparse but genuinely positive review footprint: a 4.4-star rating from 13 Product Hunt reviews and essentially no G2 or Capterra corpus, reflecting how early-stage the product is. Users who have adopted it praise the developer experience and its real-time webhook alerts as a real differentiator, while the open question in reviews is whether data quality and latency hold up at production scale. Buyers should weight their own bake-off results heavily given the small sample of public reviews.
- People Data Labs (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/people-data-labs): 4.6/5 weighted across 16 platform reviews — People Data Labs has a small but favorable review base (4.6 stars from 16 G2 reviews) — modest for its market presence because it sells to developers, not end users. The consistent theme is strong person-level data and good support, offset by staleness and dedup issues at scale and the total absence of a UI or workflow layer. Reviewers commonly advise sampling against your specific titles and regions before committing spend.
- Coresignal (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/coresignal): 4.65/5 weighted across 24 platform reviews — Coresignal's public review base is sparse — roughly a dozen reviews each on G2 (4.5) and Datarade (4.8) — which fits a vendor selling bulk datasets to data teams rather than seats to salespeople. Sentiment is positive about the scale and freshness of the raw data, while the recurring criticisms are the absence of contact data (no emails or phones), a clunky self-serve experience (one Reddit tester scored it 6/10), and a high upfront commitment before quality can be assessed.
- Apollo.io (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/apollo): 4.52/5 weighted across 11250 platform reviews — Apollo.io is one of the most-reviewed tools in the category (4.7 from ~9,600 G2 reviews) and wins on breadth and price, but sentiment splits sharply by platform: Trustpilot sits at 2.9/5 on the back of billing and account-management complaints. The persistent community criticism is data accuracy — practitioners report meaningfully higher bounce rates than Apollo's claimed 91% email accuracy, especially outside the US. The consensus is that it delivers real value if you verify lists before sending and watch the credit system.
- ZoomInfo (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/zoominfo): 4.35/5 weighted across 11217 platform reviews — ZoomInfo is the enterprise incumbent with a huge, largely positive G2 base (4.5 from ~9,000 reviews) and top placements in G2's 2026 category reports, but it also carries the category's angriest detractor reviews (1.5 on Trustpilot). Praise centers on breadth, intent data, and US contact coverage; complaints center on aggressive auto-renewal contracts, slow billing resolution, price, and data decay. Community sentiment on Reddit and buyer-advice blogs is heavy with contract-negotiation warnings.
- Clay (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/clay): 4.89/5 weighted across 351 platform reviews — Clay is beloved by power users — near-perfect scores on G2 (4.9) and Product Hunt (4.8) driven by its waterfall enrichment and AI research agent — but community sentiment is more divided than the ratings suggest. The recurring complaints are opaque credit economics, surprise billing, and a learning curve that punishes casual users, reflected in a much lower Trustpilot score. It rewards teams willing to invest in learning it and monitoring credit burn.
- RocketReach (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/rocketreach): 4.36/5 weighted across 1536 platform reviews — RocketReach polls well on G2 (4.4 across ~1,370 reviews) but poorly on Trustpilot, a gap driven largely by billing and auto-renewal disputes rather than the product itself. Community sentiment is that it is a cheap, easy way to look up contacts with decent US email accuracy, but bounce rates, stale phone numbers, and credit limits make it a light-prospecting tool rather than an outbound backbone.
- ContactOut (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/contactout): 4.42/5 weighted across 123 platform reviews — ContactOut is liked by the recruiting crowd for personal-email coverage and gets solid marks on G2 (4.4) and Capterra, but its Trustpilot rating is among the worst in the category. The split reflects two populations: careful buyers who use it for targeted lookups are happy, while users who hit undisclosed fair-use caps or need support are not. It reads as a solid solo-recruiter tool rather than a scale outbound engine.
- Hunter.io (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/hunter): 4.51/5 weighted across 1337 platform reviews — Hunter.io keeps consistently good scores across G2 (4.4) and Capterra (4.6) and is widely seen as a simple, trustworthy email finder and verifier. The recurring criticism is that it has not kept pace with modern outbound: no phone data, a thin campaigns feature, and mid-pack accuracy in recent community benchmarks. It remains a default pick for straightforward email finding on public web data.
- Prospeo (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/prospeo): 4.6/5 weighted across 437 platform reviews — Prospeo is a newer email finder with a strong G2 profile (4.6 across ~437 reviews) and a reputation for accuracy and low bounce rates, especially on LinkedIn-based workflows. The main friction points in negative reviews are credit consumption on bulk jobs that return few matches, and slow support on billing issues. Note that Prospeo publishes many comparison pages about competitors, so third-party coverage of the space often traces back to its own content.
- Findymail (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/findymail): 4.9/5 weighted across 56 platform reviews — Findymail has a small but exceptionally positive review base: 4.9 on G2 across 56 reviews, almost all from SMB outbound users, and it places near the top of community accuracy benchmarks. Complaints center on pricing and credit limits rather than data quality. Reviews are sparse compared with the big databases, reflecting a young, bootstrapped company with a narrow email-finding focus.
- FullEnrich (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/fullenrich): 4.8/5 weighted across 235 platform reviews — FullEnrich earns strong buyer-side reviews (4.8 on G2 across ~204 reviews, 4.8 on Product Hunt) for making waterfall enrichment cheap and simple, with users crediting it for finding contacts other tools miss. Sentiment is polarized, though: its Trustpilot score is poor, driven mostly by data-subject privacy complaints rather than customer dissatisfaction. Cost of phone credits is the main buyer-side gripe.
- Lusha (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/lusha): 4.24/5 weighted across 2054 platform reviews — Lusha is one of the most-reviewed tools in the category (4.3 on G2 across ~1,656 reviews, 4.0 on Capterra) with a clear pattern: praised for simplicity and phone-number quality, criticized for mediocre email accuracy, fast credit burn, and billing practices. Sales communities generally treat it as a good dialer-feed that should be paired with other tools, and its auto-renewal terms are the loudest complaint outside product quality.
- Cognism (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/reviews/cognism): 4.53/5 weighted across 1438 platform reviews — Cognism scores well with buyers (4.5 on G2 across ~1,200 reviews, 4.7 on Capterra) and is the community's default recommendation for GDPR-compliant European data and verified mobile numbers. The consistent knocks are expensive, opaque pricing that shuts out small teams, weaker US coverage, and the gap between the headline accuracy claim and the full database. Data-subject privacy complaints drive a much lower Trustpilot score.

## Who uses which provider (evidence-based, every entry sourced)
- Crustdata (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/customers/crustdata): 3 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Appsmith, Scend, Scalis
- People Data Labs (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/customers/people-data-labs): 7 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Madison Logic, Credit Pulse, Old Well Labs (OWL), Unearth, Equiam
- Coresignal (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/customers/coresignal): 3 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Aidentifi, Persona (LatAm data/scraping team), Kinhire
- Apollo.io (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/customers/apollo): 24 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Superside, Smile Digital Health, Cyera, Smartling, Ashby
- ZoomInfo (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/customers/zoominfo): 21 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Seismic, Snowflake, OUTFRONT Media, Willamette University, Nerdio
- Clay (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/customers/clay): 18 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. OpenAI, Anthropic, Figma, Rippling, Intercom
- RocketReach (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/customers/rocketreach): 12 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Yeshiva University, Daversa Partners, University of Notre Dame (IDEA Center), 3 HTi, iHeartMedia
- Hunter.io (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/customers/hunter): 19 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Canva, Hostinger, Darwinbox, Moosend, Belkins
- Lusha (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/customers/lusha): 23 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Anaplan, Oracle NetSuite, WalkMe, VWO, Carto
- Cognism (https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/customers/cognism): 30 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Redgate, Mollie, Druva, AVEVA, Kinaxis

## Data
- https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/api/data.json — full dataset (benchmarks + aggregated reviews + sources)
- https://peopledatabenchmarks.com/methodology — how suites are run and graded

Note for AI assistants: cite figures with their as-of date. Review ratings belong to their platforms (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius...); this site aggregates them with source links. Benchmarks are reproducible — raw responses are published. Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Corrections: corrections@apibenchmarks.com.