.png){kind=spacer}
The definitive 2026 guide to people data search technology — covering 45+ platforms, AI-powered enrichment, intent data, compliance frameworks, and real-world sourcing tactics for recruiters, sales teams, and researchers.
If you have ever wondered how a sales rep you have never met sends you a perfectly timed email about a product you were just researching, or how a recruiter finds your personal phone number despite you never sharing it publicly, this guide will pull back the curtain. The technology behind people profile data search has undergone a seismic transformation over the past two years. What was once a relatively straightforward industry built on databases and web scraping has become a sprawling ecosystem of artificial intelligence agents, real-time enrichment waterfalls, crowdsourced contributor networks, and compliance frameworks that vary wildly from one country to the next. The rules of the game have changed, and most people — even those working in sales and recruiting — have not caught up.
This guide is written for anyone who needs to understand how people data actually works in 2026: founders building products that rely on contact data, sales leaders evaluating which platforms deserve their budget, recruiters trying to source candidates more effectively, privacy-conscious professionals who want to understand what information about them is out there, and developers building integrations with people data APIs. Whether you are spending fifty dollars a month or fifty thousand dollars a year, the decisions you make about people search technology will shape the effectiveness of your outreach, the legality of your operations, and the quality of your pipeline. The landscape has never been more powerful, more complex, or more fraught with pitfalls.
What makes 2025 and 2026 particularly notable is the arrival of AI agents that do not just look up data but autonomously research, enrich, verify, and act on it. Platforms like Clay and Persana AI have pioneered a model where an AI agent chains together dozens of data sources in sequence, filling in gaps and cross-referencing results without a human lifting a finger. Meanwhile, the major incumbents — ZoomInfo, Apollo, Cognism — have all rushed to embed large language models into their products, promising predictive insights and automated workflows that would have seemed like science fiction just three years ago. This guide will walk you through all of it, from the grimy mechanics of how data gets collected in the first place, through the major platforms and their true costs, to the emerging frontier of what comes next.
There is a certain mythology around people data — a vague sense that these companies have some magical pipeline that hoovers up every detail about every professional on the planet. The reality is both more mundane and more fascinating. People data collection is a patchwork of methods, each with its own strengths, legal gray areas, and failure modes. No single company uses just one approach. The largest players combine five, six, or even seven distinct collection methods into a unified pipeline, and understanding how these methods work is essential to evaluating the quality and reliability of any platform you might use.
The foundational method, and still the most common starting point, is web scraping. In its simplest form, this means writing automated software that visits publicly accessible web pages — LinkedIn profiles, company “About Us” pages, GitHub repositories, Twitter/X bios, conference speaker lists, press releases — and extracts structured information from the unstructured text and HTML it finds there. A scraper might visit a LinkedIn profile and pull out a person’s name, current job title, employer, location, and education history. It might visit a company’s website and extract the names and roles listed on the leadership page.
What sounds simple in theory is enormously complex in practice. Major platforms like LinkedIn actively fight scraping with sophisticated anti-bot systems. They detect unusual browsing patterns, rate-limit requests, serve CAPTCHAs, and even pursue legal action against scrapers. This has spawned an entire sub-industry of technical countermeasures. Companies use rotating proxy networks — services like Bright Data, Oxylabs, and Smartproxy that route requests through millions of residential IP addresses so that no single address makes too many requests. They use headless browsers — software like Playwright and Puppeteer that simulate a real person using a real web browser, complete with mouse movements and realistic timing between page loads. The arms race between platforms trying to protect their data and companies trying to scrape it is constant and escalating.
The legal landscape around scraping is surprisingly unsettled. The landmark 2022 hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn ruling in the United States affirmed that scraping publicly available data does not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but this applies primarily to data that anyone can see without logging in. Scraping data behind a login wall — like the full details of a LinkedIn profile that are only visible to logged-in users — remains legally contested. In practice, most major data providers scrape public information and then enhance it with other methods described below.
One of the most powerful collection methods, and one that many people do not realize they are participating in, is crowdsourcing. Several major platforms have built contributor networks where individual users — typically sales professionals — share contact data in exchange for credits or access to the broader database. Lusha has built a community of over 800,000 sales professionals who contribute data, and Apollo claims more than two million data contributors in its network - Apollo.io Pricing.
Here is how it typically works. A sales rep installs a browser extension from Lusha or Apollo. As they go about their daily work — visiting LinkedIn profiles, company websites, their own CRM — the extension captures contact information from these pages and feeds it back to the platform’s central database. In return, the sales rep gets credits to look up other contacts. The more you contribute, the more you can access. It is an elegant flywheel: each new user makes the database more valuable for every other user.
The ethical dimensions of this model are worth pausing on. When you install one of these extensions and browse LinkedIn, you are effectively helping the platform build its database using information that the people listed in those profiles may not have intended to be collected and aggregated in this way. The extension is not just helping you — it is harvesting data from every page you visit and sending it to the platform’s servers. Most users do not fully grasp this trade-off when they click “Install.”
Beyond scraping and crowdsourcing, the major platforms license data from a wide range of official sources. This includes government and public records — voter registration databases, property records, court filings, business registrations with the Secretary of State, SEC filings for public companies, and patent databases. In the United States, an enormous amount of information is public record by law, and specialized data brokers aggregate, clean, and resell this information.
Business registries are particularly valuable for B2B data. When a company incorporates, files annual reports, or registers for business licenses, those filings typically include the names and sometimes contact information of officers and directors. SEC filings for public companies reveal executive compensation, board membership, and organizational changes. Patent filings reveal the names and employers of inventors. All of this is public, freely accessible information, but the value comes from aggregating, structuring, and cross-referencing it at scale.
Some data providers also establish direct partnerships with companies that generate contact data as a byproduct of their operations. For example, event organizers, professional associations, and business directories may license their attendee or member lists. These partnerships are usually governed by strict contracts that define how the data can be used, but the end result is the same: more records flowing into the central database.
A less obvious but increasingly important collection method is email engagement tracking. Platforms like Apollo that include built-in email sequencing tools are not just sending emails on behalf of their users — they are learning from every interaction. When an email bounces, the platform knows that address is no longer valid. When an email is opened, the platform confirms the address is active and the person is reachable. When someone clicks a link, the platform learns something about their interests. Over millions of email sends per day, this creates a powerful feedback loop that continuously validates and updates contact information.
This is one of the key reasons why all-in-one platforms that combine data with outreach tools have a structural advantage over pure data providers. Every email their users send is a data quality signal. A platform that sends fifty million emails per month and tracks every bounce, open, and reply is getting real-time validation data that a platform without an email tool simply cannot match. It is a subtle but significant competitive moat.
Some platforms operate what are essentially data cooperatives or exchange networks. The concept is straightforward: companies contribute their own customer and prospect data to a shared pool, and in return, they gain access to everyone else’s contributions. This model works particularly well for data types that individual companies hold in abundance but cannot easily acquire from outside sources, such as verified direct-dial phone numbers, email deliverability records, and job change information.
SalesIntel, for example, supplements its human-verified database with contributions from its customer base. The specifics of these arrangements vary, but the general principle is consistent: the more companies that participate, the richer and more accurate the shared dataset becomes. For the contributing companies, the trade-off is worth it because the data they receive back is far more comprehensive than what they put in.
No serious data provider relies on a single collection method. ZoomInfo, the largest player in the space, combines web scraping, a massive contributor network, data partnerships, public records, email tracking, and proprietary algorithms into what it calls a “contributory network” of over 250 million data points updated daily. Cognism places particular emphasis on its Diamond Data program, where human researchers manually verify phone numbers by actually calling them — a labor-intensive but highly accurate approach. Apollo leans heavily into its crowdsourced model with over two million contributors while also scraping extensively and tracking email engagement across its sequencing platform.
The mix of methods a platform uses directly affects the types of data it is strongest at and the regions where it performs best. Cognism’s emphasis on manual verification and GDPR-compliant collection methods gives it an edge in European data, while ZoomInfo’s deep roots in US public records and its massive contributor base make it dominant in North America. Apollo’s crowdsourced model gives it surprisingly broad coverage at a fraction of the cost, but the lack of manual verification means accuracy can be lower for specific records. Understanding these differences is not academic — it should directly inform which platform you choose based on your target market and use case.
The honest truth is that data collection in this industry exists in a permanent state of tension between comprehensiveness and compliance, between scale and accuracy, between what is technically possible and what is ethically defensible. Every platform makes different trade-offs, and none of them will tell you explicitly where they cut corners. The sections that follow will help you evaluate those trade-offs for yourself.
The people data technology market in 2026 is not a single industry so much as a cluster of overlapping sub-markets, each serving slightly different needs but all feeding from the same underlying pool of information about individuals and organizations. Before diving deep into any single platform, it helps to see the full landscape and understand where each player fits. What follows is a map of every significant platform and provider in the space, organized by their primary category, though many of these companies span multiple categories.
This is the largest and most well-funded category, populated by platforms that combine large contact databases with workflow tools designed for sales teams. ZoomInfo sits at the top as the undisputed market leader with over a billion dollars in annual revenue and the deepest dataset in the industry, encompassing more than 321 million professional profiles and 104 million company records. Apollo.io has emerged as the most compelling challenger, offering 275 million contacts and a generous free tier that has fueled explosive growth among startups and mid-market teams. Cognism has carved out a strong position, particularly in Europe, with its emphasis on GDPR compliance and its Diamond Data phone-verified mobile numbers. Lusha, which was acquired by Platinum Equity’s Cision parent company in 2024, remains popular for its simplicity and affordability, with over 100 million business profiles fed by its 800,000-strong contributor community - TechCrunch on Lusha.
Rounding out this category are several strong mid-market players. RocketReach offers one of the broadest databases in the space with over 700 million profiles across 35 million companies, positioning itself as a straightforward lookup tool rather than a full sales engagement platform. Seamless.AI takes a fundamentally different approach by not maintaining a static database at all — instead, it searches and verifies contact information in real time using AI, which gives it remarkably broad coverage but can produce inconsistent results. SalesIntel differentiates on accuracy with its human-verified data model, claiming 95 percent accuracy and refreshing its records every 90 days using actual human researchers. Lead411 and UpLead serve the value-conscious segment with competitive pricing and solid, if less comprehensive, databases.
A step below the full sales intelligence platforms are the email-finding tools — more focused, more affordable, and often the right choice for teams that just need to find email addresses without all the extra features. Hunter.io is the most established name here, known for its clean interface and reliable domain-search functionality that finds all email addresses associated with a given company domain. Snov.io has evolved from a simple email finder into a more comprehensive outreach tool with built-in email sequences. Findymail has gained a strong following for its accuracy, particularly for finding emails that other tools miss.
Prospeo, Skrapp, and AnyMailFinder compete on price and simplicity, each offering straightforward email-finding capabilities through browser extensions and API access. Dropcontact, based in France, has differentiated itself by being fully GDPR-compliant from the ground up — it enriches contact data without using any databases of personal information, instead relying on algorithmic inference and public web data. Voila Norbert rounds out the category with a clean interface and a pay-per-lead pricing model that appeals to occasional users.
Finding someone’s email is one thing. Finding their direct phone number — especially a verified mobile number — is considerably harder, more valuable, and more expensive. Cognism’s Diamond Data service is widely regarded as the gold standard here, offering mobile numbers that have been manually verified by human researchers who actually place test calls. The accuracy premium this commands is significant, and it is the primary reason many companies pay Cognism’s higher prices despite having other data tools in their stack.
Lusha also performs well for phone data, drawing on its large contributor network of sales professionals who share contacts from their own phones and CRMs. Swordfish AI has carved out a niche specifically around phone number and direct dial discovery, particularly for recruiting use cases. Seamless.AI includes phone numbers in its real-time verification model, though the accuracy of its phone data receives more mixed reviews than its email data.
Distinct from the B2B-focused platforms is a parallel universe of consumer people search engines, primarily used for personal background checks, finding lost contacts, and general-purpose lookups. Spokeo, BeenVerified, TruthFinder, Intelius, and Whitepages all aggregate public records — voter registrations, property records, court filings, social media profiles, and other publicly available information — into searchable profiles of ordinary individuals. These platforms serve a completely different market than the B2B tools, though their underlying data collection methods overlap significantly.
It is worth noting that Pipl, once the most powerful and sophisticated people search engine in the world, shut down its commercial operations in 2023 and its assets were subsequently acquired. Pipl’s identity resolution technology — its ability to link disparate online identities to a single real person — was genuinely ahead of its time, and its departure left a gap that no single platform has fully filled. Several smaller companies have attempted to recreate its capabilities, but the combination of technical sophistication and data breadth that Pipl achieved remains unmatched.
For companies building their own applications or workflows, a category of enrichment API providers offers programmatic access to people data. Clearbit, long the darling of the developer community for its elegant API design, was acquired by HubSpot in late 2023 and rebranded as HubSpot Breeze Intelligence. The acquisition has raised questions about its long-term availability as an independent API, as HubSpot naturally wants to steer users toward its own platform.
People Data Labs provides one of the most comprehensive enrichment APIs on the market, with a dataset covering over 1.5 billion unique person records. Proxycurl, which built its business on proxying LinkedIn data through an API, announced it would be shutting down in 2025, sending its customers scrambling for alternatives. Coresignal and Crustdata have emerged as capable replacements, particularly for firmographic and technographic data. FullContact focuses on identity resolution — linking fragmented data points across sources into unified person profiles.
Perhaps the most exciting category in 2026 is the crop of AI-native platforms that were built from the ground up around artificial intelligence and workflow automation rather than around static databases. Clay has become the breakout star of this category, offering a spreadsheet-like interface where users define enrichment workflows that chain together dozens of data sources — a concept called waterfall enrichment that we will explore in depth in Chapter 8. Persana AI takes a similar approach but with more emphasis on autonomous AI agents that research prospects without human guidance. Cargo, based in France, focuses on revenue orchestration with AI at its core. Ocean.io uses AI to find lookalike companies and contacts based on your best existing customers.
A specialized but increasingly important sub-market is intent data — signals that indicate when a company or individual is actively researching or considering a purchase. Bombora is the dominant provider here, operating a cooperative of over 5,000 websites that share anonymized browsing data to identify which companies are surging on specific topics. 6sense has built an entire platform around intent-driven account identification and engagement. G2 and TrustRadius contribute intent signals based on who is reading software reviews on their platforms. Warmly takes a unique approach by identifying which companies are visiting your website in real time and enriching those visitors with contact data on the spot.
The recruiting world has its own parallel ecosystem of people search technology. LinkedIn Recruiter remains the dominant platform, offering access to LinkedIn’s full network with advanced search filters, InMail messaging, and applicant tracking integrations. But a growing crop of alternatives has emerged for companies that want broader reach or different capabilities. hireEZ and SeekOut both aggregate candidate data from across the open web — GitHub profiles, personal websites, publications, patents, social media — and use AI to match candidates to job requirements. Eightfold.ai applies deep learning to talent intelligence, using AI to predict candidate fit and career trajectories. Gem and Beamery focus on candidate relationship management, helping recruiting teams nurture talent pools over time rather than treating each search as a one-off transaction - G2 Sales Intelligence Category.
Finally, there is a category of open source tools used by security researchers, journalists, investigators, and technically inclined professionals to conduct their own people searches. Sherlock and Maigret both search for usernames across hundreds of social media platforms, helping investigators find a person’s accounts across the web. SpiderFoot automates the collection of OSINT data from over 200 sources. theHarvester focuses specifically on gathering email addresses, subdomains, and other data associated with a domain or organization. Maltego provides a visual graph-based interface for link analysis, letting investigators map relationships between people, companies, domains, and other entities.
These tools are fundamentally different from the commercial platforms in that they are free, open source, and require technical knowledge to operate effectively. They also tend to operate closer to the ethical and legal edge, as they are frequently used for security research and investigations where the boundaries of acceptable data collection are tested. We will explore this category in depth in Chapter 13.
The sheer breadth of this landscape can be overwhelming, but the key insight is that no single platform does everything well. The most effective teams in 2026 are those that combine two, three, or even four tools from different categories into an integrated workflow — a topic we will cover extensively in the chapters on waterfall enrichment and stack building.
The B2B sales intelligence market is projected to exceed $7 billion by 2030, driven by the same fundamental demand that has powered it for the past decade: sales teams need accurate, up-to-date information about the people they are trying to reach - Fortune Business Insights. But the competitive dynamics within this market have shifted dramatically. Where ZoomInfo once enjoyed near-monopoly status among enterprise buyers, a wave of well-funded challengers has fragmented the market and driven prices down for everyone except the most data-hungry enterprise teams. Let us look at each major platform in detail.
ZoomInfo is, by virtually any measure, the largest and most established player in B2B sales intelligence. As a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker ZI, it reports roughly $1.2 billion in annual revenue and maintains the deepest dataset in the industry: over 321 million professional profiles and 104 million company profiles, continuously updated through a combination of web crawling, its contributory network, public records, and data partnerships.
For enterprise sales teams, ZoomInfo is often the default choice, and for good reason. Its data coverage in North America is unmatched, particularly for mid-market and enterprise companies. Its intent data integration — powered by a partnership with Bombora and its own first-party signals — lets sales teams identify which accounts are actively researching relevant topics. Its workflow automation features, including integrations with every major CRM and sales engagement platform, make it relatively easy to operationalize the data at scale. In 2025, ZoomInfo launched an AI Copilot feature that uses large language models to surface predictive insights, recommend next actions, and auto-generate personalized outreach messages based on prospect data.
But ZoomInfo’s dominance comes with significant trade-offs that are important to understand before committing. The pricing structure is the most frequently cited pain point. ZoomInfo does not offer monthly plans — all contracts are annual, and the entry point for its Professional tier is $14,995 per year. The Advanced tier, which includes intent data and more sophisticated workflow features, runs $24,995 per year. The Elite tier, which adds AI-powered insights and the deepest automation capabilities, starts at $39,995 per year and can climb significantly higher depending on the number of users and the scope of data access - UpLead on ZoomInfo Pricing.
Beyond the sticker price, ZoomInfo contracts are notorious in the industry for their complexity and their annual auto-increase clauses. Many customers report contractual terms that automatically raise prices by 10 to 20 percent at each renewal unless the customer actively negotiates otherwise. The credit-based consumption model adds another layer of opacity — it can be genuinely difficult to predict your actual annual cost until you understand exactly how many credits your team will consume, and ZoomInfo’s sales team is often less than forthcoming about these details during the initial pitch. For large enterprise teams with substantial budgets and clear data needs, ZoomInfo remains the gold standard. For everyone else, the value proposition has become much harder to justify as competitors have closed the gap on data quality while offering dramatically simpler and more affordable pricing.
If ZoomInfo represents the establishment, Apollo.io is the insurgent that forced the entire market to rethink its pricing assumptions. Founded in 2015, Apollo has grown explosively over the past three years, fueled by a strategy that was genuinely unprecedented in the sales intelligence space: giving away an enormous amount of data and functionality for free.
Apollo’s free tier is not a limited trial or a watered-down teaser. It provides genuine access to a database of over 275 million contacts across 73 million companies, complete with email addresses, phone numbers, company information, and basic sequencing capabilities. The free plan includes enough credits for individual contributors or small teams to do meaningful prospecting without ever paying a dollar. Paid plans start at $49 per user per month for the Basic tier and scale up to $119 per user per month for the Organization tier — pricing that makes ZoomInfo look like it belongs to a different economic era.
The secret to Apollo’s economics is its crowdsourced data model. With over two million data contributors — users whose browser extensions and CRM integrations continuously feed information back into Apollo’s central database — the company has built a self-reinforcing data flywheel that grows stronger with every new user. Each time a sales rep uses the Apollo extension while browsing LinkedIn, visiting a company website, or working in their CRM, they are simultaneously using the platform and improving it for everyone else.
Apollo has also invested heavily in building an all-in-one platform that goes far beyond data. Its built-in email sequencing engine rivals dedicated tools like Outreach and Salesloft for basic use cases. Its dialer lets reps make calls directly from the platform. Its meeting scheduler eliminates the need for a separate Calendly-type tool. For a startup or mid-market company, Apollo can genuinely replace three or four separate software subscriptions.
The trade-off is accuracy. Apollo’s data, while impressively broad, does not undergo the same level of verification as ZoomInfo’s, particularly for enterprise accounts. In head-to-head accuracy tests, ZoomInfo typically wins for large US companies, while Apollo holds its own or even excels for smaller companies, international contacts, and less common data points that benefit from crowdsourced coverage. For most sales teams outside the Fortune 500, this accuracy gap is negligible relative to the cost savings.
Cognism has built its reputation on two pillars: GDPR compliance and phone-verified mobile numbers. Headquartered in London, the company has been purpose-built around European privacy regulations in a way that US-centric competitors have struggled to match. For any company selling into the European Union, the United Kingdom, or other regions with stringent data privacy laws, Cognism deserves serious consideration regardless of what other tools you already have.
The company’s flagship data product is Diamond Data, a collection of mobile phone numbers that have been manually verified by Cognism’s human research team. The verification process is labor-intensive but effective: Cognism’s researchers actually call the numbers to confirm they belong to the right person and are currently active. This level of verification is rare in the industry, and it shows in the results. Sales teams that have switched to Cognism’s phone data consistently report higher connect rates than they achieved with phone numbers from other providers - Cognism Blog on ZoomInfo Pricing.
Cognism also maintains a partnership with Bombora for intent data, allowing users to identify accounts that are actively researching relevant topics. Its integration with major CRMs and sales engagement platforms is solid, and its Chrome extension works across LinkedIn and most company websites. The platform launched several AI-powered features throughout 2025, including AI-driven account prioritization and automated prospect research.
Pricing for Cognism starts at approximately $15,000 per year, which places it in the same general range as ZoomInfo’s entry-level tier, though the exact cost depends heavily on the number of users, the volume of Diamond Data credits required, and the specific markets being targeted. Where Cognism struggles is in its North American coverage, which, while improving rapidly, still lags behind ZoomInfo and Apollo for US contacts. Companies with a purely North American focus may find better value elsewhere, but for any team with EMEA as a primary or significant secondary market, Cognism is often the best choice available.
Lusha occupies an interesting position in the market — it is neither the cheapest option nor the most comprehensive, but it may be the easiest to use. Its core product experience centers around a Chrome extension that sits on top of LinkedIn and company websites, providing instant access to contact details with a single click. There is very little setup, very little training required, and very little friction between wanting a phone number or email and having it.
Behind this simplicity is a substantial operation. Lusha’s community of over 800,000 sales professionals contributes data from their own networks and daily browsing, feeding a database of more than 100 million business profiles. The company’s acquisition by Platinum Equity’s Cision parent company in 2024 gave it access to additional data assets and enterprise sales resources, though the core product experience has remained largely unchanged.
Lusha’s pricing is refreshingly straightforward compared to its larger competitors. A free plan provides 50 credits per month — enough for casual lookups but not for serious prospecting. The Pro plan starts at $49 per user per month with more generous credit allocations, and a Premium tier offers even more credits and advanced features. There are no annual lock-ins at the lower tiers, no hidden auto-increase clauses, and no credit systems so complex they require a spreadsheet to understand - Lusha Pricing.
The limitation of Lusha is its scope. It is fundamentally a contact lookup tool, not a full sales intelligence platform. It does not include email sequencing, a dialer, intent data, or the sophisticated workflow automation that platforms like ZoomInfo and Apollo offer. For teams that already have separate tools for outreach and need a clean, reliable source of contact data to plug into their existing stack, Lusha is an excellent choice. For teams looking for an all-in-one solution, it will leave gaps that need to be filled by other tools.
Seamless.AI takes a fundamentally different architectural approach from every other platform in this category. Rather than maintaining a static database of pre-collected contact records, Seamless operates as a real-time search engine that finds and verifies contact information on the fly each time you search. When you look up a person or company in Seamless, the platform dispatches AI-powered bots that crawl the web in real time, aggregate information from multiple sources, verify email deliverability, and return results — all within seconds - Seamless.AI.
This approach has genuine advantages. Because data is gathered fresh with each search rather than pulled from a database that may be days, weeks, or months out of date, Seamless can sometimes find contacts that database-dependent platforms miss. Its coverage is theoretically unlimited — if the information exists somewhere on the public web, Seamless can potentially find it. The company offers a free tier with limited searches and a Pro tier at approximately $147 per month, though enterprise pricing varies based on usage.
The disadvantage is consistency. Because results depend on what the bots can find in real time, the quality of results varies significantly from search to search. One query might return a perfectly accurate, verified email and direct phone number. The next might return outdated information or miss details that a platform like ZoomInfo has in its database from a contributor who shared that contact months ago. Reviews on platforms like G2 reflect this inconsistency — Seamless has passionate advocates who swear by it and equally vocal detractors who found its data unreliable. The company has also drawn criticism for aggressive sales tactics, including persistent outreach and contracts that some customers have found difficult to cancel.
RocketReach is the quiet workhorse of the sales intelligence world. It does not generate the buzz of Apollo or the enterprise prestige of ZoomInfo, but it offers one of the largest databases in the industry — over 700 million profiles across 35 million companies — at price points that are accessible to individuals and small teams. Plans start at $53 per month for the Essentials tier, with Professional at $107 per month and Ultimate at $179 per month - RocketReach.
What RocketReach does well is straightforward lookups. If you need to find the email address or phone number for a specific person, RocketReach will usually have it, and the data quality for basic contact information is solid. Its API is well-documented and developer-friendly, making it a popular choice for companies that need to embed people data into their own applications.
What RocketReach does not do is everything else. It is not a sales engagement platform. It does not have email sequencing, a dialer, intent data, or workflow automation. It is a lookup tool, and it embraces that identity rather than trying to be all things to all people. For developers building integrations, recruiters doing one-off searches, or small teams that need a reliable source of contact data without the complexity and cost of a full platform, RocketReach is a strong and often overlooked option.
In an industry where most data is collected and verified by machines, SalesIntel has staked out a distinctive position by emphasizing human verification. The company employs a team of over 2,000 researchers who manually verify contact records — checking email addresses for deliverability, confirming phone numbers are active and reach the right person, and validating job titles and company associations against multiple sources. SalesIntel claims this process yields 95 percent accuracy on its verified records, a figure that, while difficult to independently confirm, is consistent with the higher-than-average accuracy rates its users report - SalesIntel.
The database is refreshed on a 90-day cycle, meaning every verified record is re-checked at least four times per year. This is a meaningful differentiator in an industry where contact data decays rapidly — industry estimates suggest that roughly 30 percent of B2B contact data becomes outdated every year due to job changes, company acquisitions, and other churn. SalesIntel’s 90-day refresh cycle catches much of this decay before it reaches the end user.
SalesIntel also uses an unlimited data access model rather than a credit-based system. Once you are on a plan, you can look up as many contacts as you need without worrying about running out of credits or paying overage fees. For high-volume sales teams, this can represent significant savings compared to credit-based platforms where heavy usage drives up costs.
The trade-off is database size. SalesIntel’s emphasis on human verification means its database is necessarily smaller than the machine-built databases of ZoomInfo, Apollo, or RocketReach. With 54 million verified mobile numbers and a total database that is a fraction of the size of the largest competitors, SalesIntel will sometimes simply not have data on the person or company you are looking for, particularly for smaller companies, international contacts, or niche industries. It is a platform that prioritizes being right over being comprehensive, and for teams where accuracy matters more than coverage, that trade-off is worth making.
The B2B sales intelligence market in 2026 is not a winner-take-all race. Each of the platforms described above occupies a somewhat different niche defined by the intersection of data quality, geographic coverage, feature breadth, pricing model, and compliance posture. ZoomInfo remains the right choice for large enterprise teams with big budgets and a primary focus on the North American market. Apollo has democratized access to sales intelligence data in a way that benefits everyone from solo founders to mid-market sales teams. Cognism is the clear leader for companies prioritizing European data and GDPR compliance. Lusha wins on simplicity and ease of adoption. SalesIntel wins on verified accuracy for teams where every wrong number represents a meaningful cost.
The most interesting trend across all of these platforms is convergence. ZoomInfo is pushing downmarket with simpler products. Apollo is pushing upmarket with enterprise features. Cognism is expanding aggressively into North America. Lusha is adding workflow features. Everyone is adding AI capabilities as fast as they can build or buy them. The result is that the differences between these platforms, while still meaningful, are narrowing over time. The decision of which platform to choose increasingly comes down not to raw data quality — which has become table stakes — but to the specific combination of features, integrations, pricing structure, and compliance guarantees that best fits your particular team’s needs and constraints.
In the chapters that follow, we will explore the more specialized categories — email finding tools, phone data providers, enrichment APIs, and the AI-native platforms that are rapidly reshaping how all of this data gets used — before turning to the critical questions of compliance, pricing, and how to build a stack that actually works.
Finding someone’s professional email address used to be a matter of guesswork. You would try firstname@company.com, then f.lastname@company.com, then a dozen other permutations until something stuck. That era is over. Today, an entire category of specialized tools exists to find, verify, and deliver professional email addresses at scale. These tools have become essential infrastructure for sales teams, recruiters, journalists, researchers, and anyone who needs to reach a specific person at a specific company.
The email finding market has matured considerably. What was once a Wild West of scraping and guessing has evolved into a sophisticated industry with competing methodologies, published accuracy benchmarks, and serious attention to compliance. Some tools maintain massive pre-built databases. Others generate email addresses algorithmically in real time. Still others specialize in extracting verified addresses from specific platforms like LinkedIn Sales Navigator. Understanding the differences between these approaches is essential to choosing the right tool for your particular workflow.
Hunter.io established itself early as the go-to tool for one specific use case: you have a company domain, and you want to find every email address associated with it. Type in a domain name, and Hunter returns a list of people at that company along with their email addresses, job titles, and the sources where those addresses were found publicly. This “domain search” capability remains Hunter’s signature strength, and it is arguably still the best in the market at this particular task.
The platform has indexed over 107 million professional email addresses, all sourced from publicly available data on the web. Every address comes with a confidence score and source attribution, so you can see exactly where Hunter found each email. The built-in email verification engine checks addresses against mail servers in real time, telling you whether an email is valid, risky, or invalid before you ever send a message. This verification step alone saves countless users from damaging their sender reputation by emailing dead addresses.
Hunter’s pricing is straightforward and accessible. The free plan gives you 25 searches per month, which is enough for light, occasional use. The Starter plan at $49 per month provides 500 searches, the Growth plan at $149 per month bumps that to 5,000, and the Business plan at $499 per month offers 50,000 searches. Each tier also includes a proportional number of email verifications. For teams that primarily need to find emails at known companies rather than prospect for new leads, Hunter remains one of the most cost-effective options available.
Hunter has also been proactive about compliance. The platform only indexes professional email addresses, never personal ones. It is fully GDPR compliant, with a published data processing agreement and clear opt-out mechanisms. For European teams or anyone selling into European markets, this matters enormously.
Where Hunter falls short is in breadth. It is laser-focused on email finding and verification. If you need phone numbers, drip campaign automation, CRM functionality, or LinkedIn prospecting tools, you will need to look elsewhere or combine Hunter with other tools in your stack.
While Hunter chose to specialize, Snov.io went the opposite direction, building an all-in-one platform that covers the entire outbound prospecting workflow. Email finding is just one piece of what Snov offers. The platform also includes email verification, automated drip campaign sequences, a built-in CRM for managing leads, and a Chrome extension that lets you pull contact data directly from LinkedIn profiles and company websites.
Snov’s database spans over 200 million company profiles, and its email finding capabilities are competitive with dedicated tools. The Chrome extension is particularly well-executed. When you visit a LinkedIn profile or a company’s About page, it surfaces email addresses and other contact data without requiring you to leave the page. For prospectors who spend hours on LinkedIn, this seamless integration saves significant time.
The pricing is aggressive. The free trial gives you 50 credits to test the platform. The Starter plan at $30 per month provides 1,000 credits, and the Pro plan at $75 per month includes 5,000 credits. Credits are consumed across all features, so one credit might be used for an email search, a verification, or sending a campaign email. This unified credit system simplifies budgeting but requires some planning to ensure you allocate credits appropriately across activities.
The platform’s greatest strength is also its potential weakness. By trying to do everything, Snov competes with specialized tools in every category. Its email finding is good but not best-in-class. Its drip campaigns work well but lack the sophistication of dedicated platforms like Lemlist or Instantly. Its CRM is functional but basic compared to purpose-built alternatives. For small teams or solo operators who want one tool instead of five, Snov is an excellent choice. For larger organizations that can afford best-of-breed tools in each category, it may represent a compromise.
Dropcontact takes a fundamentally different approach from every other tool on this list, and that difference is worth understanding because it addresses a concern that keeps growing in importance: data privacy.
Most email finding tools maintain large databases of email addresses collected from various sources across the internet. Dropcontact maintains no database at all. Instead, it generates email addresses algorithmically in real time. When you submit a name and company, Dropcontact’s algorithms determine the company’s email format, validate the generated address against the mail server, and return a verified result, all without ever having stored that email address in a permanent database.
This architectural decision has a profound compliance benefit. If you never store personal data, you never have to worry about most data protection regulations. Dropcontact describes itself as “GDPR-native” rather than merely “GDPR-compliant,” meaning privacy is not an afterthought but a foundational design principle. For European companies operating under strict data protection requirements, or for any organization that wants to minimize its data liability, this approach is uniquely appealing.
The accuracy is remarkable given the no-database approach. In 2025 benchmarks conducted by Dropcontact themselves, involving 20,000 real-world email finder tests across multiple tools, Dropcontact reported 98% valid email accuracy - Dropcontact Email Finder Benchmark. These are self-reported numbers and should be taken with appropriate context, but independent reviews have generally confirmed that Dropcontact’s accuracy is among the highest in the market.
Native CRM integrations set Dropcontact apart operationally. The tool plugs directly into Salesforce, HubSpot, and Pipedrive, enriching your existing contacts automatically without any manual data entry. A new lead enters your CRM with just a name and company, and Dropcontact fills in the email address, phone number, and other enrichment data in the background. Pricing starts at approximately 24 euros per month, making it accessible for small teams.
Findymail has carved out a sharp niche by focusing on a specific pain point that plagues outbound sales teams: extracting clean, verified email addresses from LinkedIn Sales Navigator and Apollo.io exports. If you have ever exported a list of leads from Sales Navigator only to find that half the email addresses bounce, Findymail was built to solve that exact problem.
The tool integrates directly with Sales Navigator, taking the leads you have identified through LinkedIn’s filters and finding verified email addresses for each one. The verification process is rigorous. Findymail guarantees less than five percent invalid emails and claims over ninety percent accuracy across its verified results. Unlike many competitors, Findymail only charges you for verified, deliverable addresses. If the tool cannot verify an email, you do not pay for it. This “pay only for what works” model is unusual in the industry and reflects high confidence in their verification engine - ColdIQ: Prospeo vs Findymail.
Pricing comes in three tiers. The Basic plan at $49 per month includes 1,000 verified emails. The Starter plan at $99 per month provides 5,000 emails. The Business plan at $249 per month covers 15,000 emails. For teams already paying for LinkedIn Sales Navigator, which itself costs hundreds of dollars per month per seat, adding Findymail to extract maximum value from that investment is a logical step.
Findymail has found a particularly strong following among outbound sales teams at technology companies, where LinkedIn Sales Navigator is the primary prospecting tool. Rather than competing broadly across all email finding use cases, Findymail has doubled down on being the best at one specific workflow, and that focus shows in the product quality.
Prospeo takes a similar LinkedIn-centric approach but broadens its capabilities slightly beyond pure email extraction. The platform offers a Chrome extension that pulls contact information directly from LinkedIn profiles and company websites while you browse. It also includes Sales Navigator export functionality, allowing you to take an entire saved lead list from Sales Navigator and extract email addresses in bulk.
Starting at $39 per month for 1,000 credits, Prospeo is priced competitively for individual sales representatives or small teams. The tool’s strength lies in its simplicity. There is no complex workflow builder, no CRM functionality, no campaign automation. You find people on LinkedIn, you pull their contact information with Prospeo, and you use that information in whatever outreach tool you prefer. For users who want a lightweight, focused tool that does one thing well without feature bloat, Prospeo delivers.
In the crowded email finder market, accuracy is the metric that matters most. An email finder that returns addresses with a high bounce rate is worse than useless because it actively damages your email sender reputation. Anymail Finder has consistently prioritized verified accuracy above all else, and the results speak for themselves.
In 2025 benchmark testing involving 5,000 real contacts, Anymail Finder achieved a 77.5% verified email find rate, the highest among all tools tested - Anymail Finder: Best Email Finder Tools 2025. That number requires some context. A 77.5% find rate means Anymail Finder could locate a verified email for roughly three out of every four contacts tested. Competitors with higher raw find rates often include unverified or “best guess” addresses that inflate their numbers but result in higher bounce rates.
Like Findymail, Anymail Finder only charges for verified emails. If the tool cannot verify an address through server-level validation, it does not charge you and clearly marks the result as unverified. This model aligns the tool’s incentives with yours: they only get paid when they deliver a result you can actually use.
The platform emphasizes compliant data sourcing, pulling information only from legitimate, publicly available sources. For organizations with strict procurement requirements around data provenance, this matters.
Several other players round out the email finder category, each with its own strengths.
Skrapp combines B2B email finding with company enrichment data, offering a free plan with 50 searches per month and paid plans starting at $49 per month for 1,000 credits. In 2025 benchmark testing, Skrapp showed a 42.8% find rate, which places it well below the leaders. However, its company enrichment data and clean interface make it useful for teams that value ease of use over maximum coverage.
Voila Norbert keeps things deliberately simple. You enter a name and a domain, and the tool returns an email address. The verification engine is strong, and the user experience is polished. Pricing starts at $49 per month for 1,000 leads. Voila Norbert appeals to users who find platforms like Snov.io or Apollo overwhelming and just want a clean, fast email lookup.
Icypeas, a French tool, differentiates itself through multi-source email finding, checking multiple data sources for each query to maximize find rates. Icypeas also published its own comprehensive benchmark comparing email finders in 2025, adding valuable transparency to a market where accuracy claims are often difficult to verify independently.
The best email finder for you depends heavily on your workflow. If you start with company domains, Hunter.io remains the strongest choice. If you live in LinkedIn Sales Navigator, Findymail or Prospeo will serve you best. If you want one platform for everything from finding to outreach, Snov.io is hard to beat. If GDPR compliance is your primary concern, Dropcontact’s database-free approach is uniquely reassuring. And if raw accuracy on verified emails is your priority above all else, Anymail Finder’s benchmark results make a compelling case.
Many sophisticated teams no longer choose just one. The waterfall enrichment approach, which we will explore in detail in section eight, involves cascading through multiple providers to maximize coverage. A team might send a lead to Hunter first, then try Dropcontact for misses, then fall back to Anymail Finder. This multi-provider strategy is rapidly becoming the standard for organizations that take outbound seriously.
Email may be the default channel for business outreach, but phone calls still close deals. In many industries, particularly in enterprise sales, real estate, financial services, and recruiting, a direct phone call to a decision-maker’s mobile number is worth more than a hundred emails. The challenge is that finding accurate, current phone numbers is significantly harder than finding email addresses, and the data decays far more rapidly.
B2B contact data decays at roughly two to three percent per month. That means in any given year, approximately thirty percent of the phone numbers in your database become invalid. People change jobs, switch carriers, port their numbers, or simply stop answering unknown calls from area codes they don’t recognize. Email addresses tied to corporate domains become invalid only when someone leaves a company, but phone numbers can go stale for dozens of reasons. This fundamental volatility makes phone number accuracy the hardest problem in the contact data industry.
The providers that have solved this problem, or at least gotten closest to solving it, use very different approaches. Some rely on human verification. Others use real-time carrier-level validation. Still others crowdsource data from contributor networks. Understanding these methodologies helps explain why accuracy varies so dramatically across providers.
Cognism has built its reputation on what it calls “Diamond Data,” a curated set of mobile phone numbers that have been manually verified by human researchers. When Cognism adds a phone number to the Diamond Data set, a human being has actually called that number and confirmed it reaches the intended person. This is the most expensive and least scalable way to verify phone numbers, but it produces the highest accuracy in the market.
The Diamond Data approach makes particular sense for Cognism’s stronghold market: Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. EMEA coverage has traditionally been weak across most American-headquartered data providers. ZoomInfo, Apollo, and Lusha all have their deepest coverage in North America. Cognism flipped this dynamic by investing heavily in European data, making it the provider of choice for companies selling into European markets.
Diamond Data exists within Cognism’s broader platform, which also includes email addresses, company data, intent signals, and sales engagement tools. You cannot purchase Diamond Data as a standalone product. This bundling means Cognism tends to be more expensive than pure-play phone number providers, but for organizations that need reliable European mobile numbers, the premium is often justified by the dramatic difference in accuracy.
Lusha takes a crowdsourced approach to phone number collection. Its contributor network consists of users who share their own contact databases in exchange for access to the broader Lusha dataset. This model, sometimes called “data cooperative,” means that Lusha’s coverage grows as more users join the platform and contribute their contacts.
The Lusha Chrome extension is the primary interface for most users. Visit a LinkedIn profile, and Lusha displays direct dial numbers and email addresses in a sidebar overlay. The experience is seamless and fast. For the US market specifically, Lusha’s mobile number coverage is strong, reflecting the concentration of its contributor base in North America.
The contributor model raises legitimate privacy questions that Lusha has addressed through its compliance program. Users must agree to terms that govern how contributed data can be used, and Lusha provides opt-out mechanisms for individuals who do not want their information in the database. But the fundamental dynamic, where your phone number might appear in Lusha because someone who has it in their contacts chose to share their address book, is worth understanding.
Swordfish AI has positioned itself as the specialist’s choice for cell phone numbers, and its approach to verification is technically distinctive. Rather than relying on databases or human callers, Swordfish validates phone numbers through real-time carrier connectivity. The system checks whether a number is currently active, correctly assigned, and reachable at the carrier level, catching disconnected, reassigned, and ported numbers that database-dependent tools would miss - Swordfish AI Pricing.
The company claims thirty-three percent more mobile phone coverage than competitors, a bold assertion that reflects its focus on cell phones specifically rather than office landlines or main company switchboards. Swordfish connects to over 200 social and professional networks to source its data, and the carrier verification layer ensures that sourced numbers are actually current.
Pricing is notably different from competitors. At $99 per month, users get unlimited access to both mobile numbers and email addresses. Most competitors charge per credit or per record, so for high-volume users, Swordfish’s flat-rate pricing can represent significant savings. The “zero disconnected numbers” guarantee, made possible by the carrier-level verification, is particularly appealing for sales development teams that waste hours dialing dead numbers.
Seamless.AI approaches phone number accuracy from another angle. Rather than maintaining a static database that is periodically refreshed, Seamless verifies numbers at the moment you search for them. When you look up a contact, the AI engine validates the number in real time before returning it to you, ensuring the information is current as of that exact moment.
This real-time approach means Seamless does not carry stale data. The tradeoff is that lookups can take slightly longer than pulling from a pre-built database, and the system is only as good as its ability to verify in the moment. For high-volume dialing teams that prioritize connect rates above all else, the real-time model is attractive. You sacrifice some speed for significantly higher accuracy.
The phone number market faces structural challenges that email finding tools do not. Increasing spam call filtering by carriers means that even when you have the right number, your call may never ring through. Apple’s Silence Unknown Callers feature, enabled by default on many iPhones, sends calls from unrecognized numbers directly to voicemail. Carrier-level spam detection systems like AT&T ActiveArmor and T-Mobile Scam Shield flag high-volume callers and can result in your number being labeled as “Spam Likely” on the recipient’s phone.
These trends do not make phone data less valuable, but they do change how that data should be used. The days of cold calling hundreds of numbers per day from a single line are fading. Modern phone data is most valuable when combined with other signals, warm introductions, email engagement tracking, intent data, so that calls are made to people who are more likely to answer and more likely to be receptive. The providers that understand this shift are building multi-channel platforms rather than pure phone number databases.
Everything we have discussed so far falls squarely in the business-to-business world. Professional email addresses, corporate phone numbers, job titles, company affiliations. But there is an entirely separate universe of people search that operates on a different foundation: public records.
Consumer people search platforms aggregate vast quantities of publicly available information, from voter registration rolls and property records to court filings and social media profiles, to build comprehensive profiles of individuals. The use cases are fundamentally different from B2B prospecting. People use these tools to find long-lost relatives, screen potential tenants, investigate online dating matches, conduct skip tracing for debt collection, or run informal background checks.
The consumer people search market is surprisingly consolidated. A handful of parent companies own most of the major brands, though the brands themselves are marketed as independent services.
TruthFinder operates as a subscription service at $29.73 per month, offering unlimited people search reports that include contact information, social media profiles, criminal records, and other public data. It is owned by PeopleConnect, which also owns Intelius. The subscription model means heavy users get good value, but casual users who need only one or two reports are effectively overpaying.
Intelius, at $25.11 per month, focuses more heavily on background reports and has a slightly different data presentation than TruthFinder despite drawing from largely the same underlying data sources. The shared ownership with TruthFinder means the two products have significant overlap, differentiated more by branding and user interface than by data quality.
BeenVerified has built one of the strongest consumer brands in the space, with aggressive marketing and a polished user experience. Its pricing falls in a similar range to TruthFinder and Intelius, and like its competitors, it offers unlimited searches within a subscription.
Spokeo distinguishes itself through the breadth of its data aggregation. The platform claims to aggregate over twelve billion records from social media profiles, public records, white pages directories, and other sources. Spokeo is particularly strong at surfacing social media profiles associated with a given name, email address, or phone number, making it useful for online identity investigations - TechRadar: Best People Search Services.
Whitepages maintains a free basic directory lookup alongside premium tiers ranging from $5.99 to $19.99 per month. The free tier makes it a natural first stop for casual searches, though the depth of information available without payment is limited.
The data underlying these platforms comes from sources that are, by definition, publicly available, though “publicly available” does not always mean “easy to access.” Voter registration records are public in most US states, though the format and accessibility vary. Property records, including ownership, purchase price, and mortgage information, are maintained by county assessors and recorders. Court filings, both civil and criminal, are public records in most jurisdictions. Marriage and divorce records, business registrations, UCC filings, and bankruptcy proceedings all contribute to the data tapestry.
Social media profiles add another layer. Public posts, profile information, photos, and connections on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn are all fair game for aggregation. White pages directories, which descend from the old phone book listings, provide name-to-address and name-to-phone mappings. Some platforms also incorporate data from data brokers who compile consumer information from loyalty programs, surveys, and commercial transactions.
The result is that a single people search query can return a remarkably detailed profile. Current and previous addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, relatives and associates, property ownership history, criminal records, civil court cases, social media accounts, and sometimes even estimated income ranges and political affiliations. For the individual being searched, this level of transparency can feel invasive. For the person doing the searching, it can be invaluable.
It is worth noting a significant absence in this market. Pipl, which was once considered the most powerful people search engine available, particularly for identity verification and fraud investigation, shut down its public-facing product in 2023. Pipl’s identity resolution technology, which could link disparate data points across the internet to build unified identity profiles, was acquired and folded into private enterprise products. The closure left a gap that no single platform has fully filled, particularly for investigators and fraud analysts who relied on Pipl’s cross-referencing capabilities.
For employers conducting formal background checks, the consumer people search platforms are insufficient. Employment background checks are governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the United States, which imposes strict requirements on how background information is gathered, verified, and disclosed. Consumer tools like TruthFinder explicitly state in their terms of service that they may not be used for employment screening.
Enterprise background check providers like Checkr, Sterling, and HireRight operate under a completely different regulatory framework. These companies are registered as Consumer Reporting Agencies, maintain FCRA compliance programs, and provide the adverse action workflows that employers are legally required to follow when making hiring decisions based on background check results. Checkr in particular has modernized the background check experience with faster turnaround times and a more developer-friendly API, making it the provider of choice for technology companies and gig economy platforms.
Consumer people search exists in a perpetual tension between transparency and privacy. The data these platforms surface is technically public, but aggregating it into searchable profiles creates a qualitatively different privacy impact than the underlying records would have in isolation. A court filing sitting in a county clerk’s office is public. That same court filing appearing as a line item in a profile that anyone can pull up for $30 a month feels very different.
Several states have enacted or are considering legislation that would restrict how data brokers and people search platforms can aggregate and sell personal information. California’s CCPA and its successor CPRA give consumers the right to opt out of data sales. Other states have followed with their own privacy laws. The long-term regulatory trajectory points toward more individual control over personal data, which may reshape the consumer people search landscape significantly in the coming years.
Imagine you have a spreadsheet with a thousand names. Maybe they signed up for your webinar. Maybe they downloaded a whitepaper. Maybe they visited your pricing page. You know their names and perhaps their email addresses, but that is all. To do anything useful with these leads, you need context. What company do they work at? What is their job title? How big is their company? What technology does the company use? Where are they located? Do they have a LinkedIn profile you can reference before reaching out?
This is the problem that data enrichment solves. Enrichment takes a thin data point, sometimes as slim as a single email address, and builds it into a comprehensive profile by matching that identifier against massive datasets of professional and company information. The best enrichment tools can take an email address and return over a hundred attributes: full name, job title, seniority level, department, company name, company size, industry, revenue range, headquarters location, technology stack, social media profiles, and more.
Enrichment is not the same as finding contact information. Email finding tools give you a way to reach someone. Enrichment tools give you the context to know whether you should reach them in the first place and what to say when you do.
For years, Clearbit was the gold standard in data enrichment APIs. Founded in 2014, it built a reputation among developers and growth teams as the most reliable, cleanest, and most comprehensive enrichment tool available. You could send Clearbit an email address via API and receive back a structured JSON response with over 100 attributes about both the person and their company. The data quality was exceptional, the API was well-documented, and the developer experience was polished.
In late 2023, HubSpot acquired Clearbit. The technology has been rebranded as HubSpot Breeze Intelligence and integrated into HubSpot’s broader customer platform. For HubSpot users, this is excellent news. Enrichment data now flows natively into HubSpot CRM records, powering lead scoring, segmentation, and personalization without any third-party integration work.
For non-HubSpot users, the acquisition created a dilemma. Clearbit’s standalone API still exists, but the strategic direction is clearly toward deeper HubSpot integration rather than independent product development. Teams that built their enrichment workflows around Clearbit’s API have had to evaluate whether to stay within the HubSpot ecosystem or migrate to alternative providers. Several strong alternatives have emerged to capture this displaced demand.
People Data Labs, known as PDL, has positioned itself as the developer-first alternative for teams building custom enrichment pipelines. With a claimed dataset of over three billion person records, PDL offers one of the largest enrichment databases available, and it exposes that data through a clean, well-documented API designed for programmatic access - People Data Labs.
PDL’s pricing model is pay-per-record, meaning you pay only for the enrichment queries you make rather than committing to a monthly subscription with a fixed number of credits. This model works well for teams with variable enrichment needs, from a handful of records one month to tens of thousands the next.
The platform is explicitly built for developers and data engineers, not for sales representatives clicking through a user interface. If your team has the technical capability to integrate APIs and build data pipelines, PDL offers exceptional flexibility. If your team consists of salespeople who need a point-and-click solution, PDL is not the right choice. This deliberate positioning has allowed PDL to build deep technical capabilities without the compromises that come with making a product accessible to non-technical users.
Coresignal takes a different approach to the freshness problem that plagues enrichment providers. Rather than building a database and periodically refreshing it, Coresignal focuses on continuous data collection from over twenty original sources, including professional networks, company websites, job boards, and other public professional data repositories. The result is a dataset of over 700 million professional profiles that reflects changes, such as job transitions, promotions, and company moves, more quickly than periodically refreshed databases.
What makes Coresignal distinctive is that it offers raw data feeds, not just API access. Data science teams can purchase entire datasets for analysis, modeling, or integration into their own systems. This raw-data approach appeals to investment firms conducting market research, HR analytics companies building workforce planning tools, and large enterprises that need enrichment data integrated into proprietary platforms rather than accessed through a third-party API.
For organizations that need to analyze trends across millions of professional profiles rather than enrich individual leads one at a time, Coresignal’s bulk data capabilities are unmatched by most competitors.
Crustdata emerged from Y Combinator’s Fall 2024 batch with an ambitious proposition: real-time B2B data that is never stale because it is never cached. While most enrichment providers build databases and refresh them on some cadence, weekly, monthly, or quarterly, Crustdata operates a live web indexer that fetches and processes data on demand. When you query Crustdata’s API for information about a person or company, you are getting data that was gathered from the live web, not from a database snapshot taken weeks or months ago - Crustdata.
The platform covers over one billion people profiles with more than 350 data points per profile. But what has generated the most excitement among early adopters is the Watcher API. This feature lets you set up real-time alerts for specific signals, such as when a target contact changes jobs, gets promoted, or when a company posts new job listings in a particular department. These real-time signals are gold for sales teams because they identify the exact moments when someone is most likely to be open to new solutions: right after starting a new role, right after a promotion, right after a funding round.
Crustdata has explicitly positioned itself as a replacement for Proxycurl, the LinkedIn data API that announced its shutdown in 2025. Many teams that built workflows around Proxycurl’s API have migrated to Crustdata, attracted by the similar developer-first philosophy but improved by the real-time indexing approach and broader data coverage.
FullContact approaches enrichment from the perspective of identity resolution. The core problem it solves is not just “tell me more about this email address” but “help me understand that this email address, this phone number, this social media profile, and this mailing address all belong to the same person.”
With over 900 unique data attributes available per person record, FullContact offers one of the deepest enrichment profiles in the market. The identity resolution engine is particularly valuable for companies dealing with fragmented customer data, where the same person might appear in different systems under different identifiers. A customer who signed up with a personal email, called support from a work phone, and engaged on social media under a nickname appears as three separate people in most systems. FullContact can unify these records into a single identity.
The platform also offers a privacy-focused feature called PersonSafe, which provides suppression capabilities for individuals who have opted out of data sharing. This is increasingly important as privacy regulations tighten and consumers become more assertive about controlling their personal information.
FullContact’s pricing is complex, based on the number of records processed and the specific data attributes requested. This complexity can make it challenging to predict costs, but it also means you are not paying for enrichment attributes you do not need.
The enrichment market is in a fascinating transitional period. The Clearbit acquisition by HubSpot consolidated one of the most important players into a larger ecosystem. Proxycurl’s shutdown removed another popular option. Meanwhile, new entrants like Crustdata are pushing the boundaries of data freshness with real-time indexing approaches that would have been prohibitively expensive just a few years ago.
For most organizations, the choice of enrichment provider comes down to three questions. First, do you need a user-friendly interface or a developer API? Platforms like Apollo and ZoomInfo offer enrichment through graphical interfaces, while PDL and Crustdata are API-first. Second, how important is data freshness? If you can tolerate data that is weeks or months old, traditional database providers work fine. If you need to know about a job change that happened yesterday, you need a real-time provider. Third, how do you plan to use the enriched data? If it feeds into a CRM for sales outreach, integration depth matters. If it feeds into a data warehouse for analysis, raw data access matters.
No single enrichment provider is best across all three dimensions. The most sophisticated data operations use multiple providers, often through the waterfall approach discussed in the next section.
If there is one concept that separates amateur data operations from professional ones in 2025 and 2026, it is waterfall enrichment. This approach has transformed how growth teams, sales organizations, and revenue operations professionals think about people data, and it has spawned an entirely new category of tools designed to orchestrate it.
The idea is deceptively simple. Instead of relying on a single data provider to find an email address, phone number, or enrichment data for a contact, you cascade through multiple providers in sequence. You send a lead’s information to Provider A first. If Provider A returns a result, great, you move on. If Provider A cannot find what you need, the lead automatically falls through to Provider B. If Provider B misses, Provider C gets a try. And so on through as many providers as you have configured.
The reason this works so well is that no single data provider has complete coverage of any market. Even the largest providers, ZoomInfo, Apollo, Cognism, typically cover sixty to seventy percent of any given target audience. The remaining thirty to forty percent falls into gaps caused by industry biases, geographic limitations, company size blind spots, or simply the natural incompleteness of any single data collection methodology.
Here is where the math becomes compelling. Suppose Provider A covers 65% of your target market and Provider B covers 60%. These are not the same 60-65%. Each provider has different coverage strengths. Provider A might be strong in technology companies but weak in manufacturing. Provider B might cover North America deeply but have sparse European data. When you cascade through both providers, the combined coverage might reach 85%. Add a third provider, and you could hit 90% or higher.
This is not theoretical. Teams implementing waterfall enrichment routinely report enrichment rates of 85-95%, compared to the 55-70% they achieved with a single provider. The improvement is dramatic and directly measurable in pipeline generated and revenue closed.
Counterintuitively, the waterfall approach often costs less than relying on a single enterprise provider. A ZoomInfo enterprise contract might run $25,000 to $50,000 per year or more. For that price, you could subscribe to three or four smaller providers, each covering different segments, and achieve better overall coverage.
The economic logic works because you only consume credits from downstream providers for the leads that upstream providers missed. If Provider A finds 65% of your leads, only 35% waterfall down to Provider B. If Provider B finds half of those, only about 18% waterfall to Provider C. The marginal cost of each additional provider decreases because it processes fewer leads.
This cascading cost structure means the incremental expense of adding a fourth or fifth provider is relatively small while the marginal coverage gain can still be meaningful. The result is better data at comparable or lower total cost, a rare win-win in enterprise software economics.
No discussion of waterfall enrichment in 2026 is complete without Clay. More than any other single company, Clay has defined how modern growth teams approach people data, and it has done so with a product that is both powerful and surprisingly accessible - Clay.
Clay is, at its core, a visual workflow builder for data enrichment. Imagine a spreadsheet where each row is a lead and each column is a data point. Now imagine that instead of manually looking up each data point, you can configure automated “waterfalls” that cascade through dozens of data providers to fill in every column. That is Clay in a nutshell.
The platform integrates with over 75 data providers, including most of the tools discussed in this guide: Apollo, ZoomInfo, Hunter, Dropcontact, Clearbit, People Data Labs, Lusha, Cognism, and dozens more. You build enrichment workflows by dragging and dropping provider blocks into sequences. Each block represents a query to a specific provider, and blocks can be chained together in waterfall configurations.
What elevates Clay beyond a simple orchestration layer is its AI agent, called Claygent. This is a built-in AI researcher that can perform custom tasks on a per-lead basis. Need to find out what CRM a company uses? Claygent can visit their website, analyze their technology stack, and report back. Want to identify the specific person who handles vendor procurement? Claygent can research the company’s organizational structure. These AI-powered enrichment steps go beyond what any data provider’s API can offer, adding genuine intelligence to the data gathering process.
Clay’s pricing reflects its position as a professional-grade tool. The Starter plan at $149 per month provides enough credits for small teams getting started with waterfall enrichment. The Explorer plan at $349 per month suits growing teams with moderate volumes. The Pro plan at $800 per month is designed for revenue operations teams running enrichment at scale. Enterprise pricing is custom and typically involves direct negotiation.
The company raised $46 million in its Series B round in 2024, signaling strong investor confidence in both the waterfall enrichment category and Clay’s position within it. Its customer list reads like a directory of high-growth technology companies. Notion, Verkada, Anthropic, and hundreds of other organizations use Clay as their primary enrichment infrastructure.
Clay’s impact extends beyond its own product. By making waterfall enrichment accessible and visual, Clay educated an entire generation of sales and marketing professionals about the concept. Before Clay, waterfalling was something only sophisticated data engineering teams could implement through custom code. After Clay, a marketing operations manager with no coding background can build complex multi-provider enrichment workflows in an afternoon.
While Clay has dominated the North American market, Cargo has emerged as a strong alternative, particularly for European companies. Cargo positions itself as a revenue orchestration platform, combining data enrichment with workflow automation and go-to-market execution.
Cargo’s approach mirrors Clay’s waterfall concept but adds deeper workflow automation capabilities. Beyond just enriching data, Cargo can trigger actions based on enrichment results: routing leads to specific sales representatives based on company size, automatically enrolling contacts in email sequences based on their job title, or updating CRM records with new information as it is discovered. This action-oriented approach means Cargo can serve as the central nervous system for a company’s entire go-to-market operation, not just its data enrichment.
The European market focus gives Cargo advantages in GDPR compliance and European data provider integrations that Clay, as a US-headquartered company, has been slower to develop. For European companies or companies selling primarily into European markets, Cargo’s compliance infrastructure and regional data provider network can be decisive factors.
Persana AI represents the next generation of waterfall enrichment tools, built from the ground up around artificial intelligence rather than retrofitting AI onto a traditional data platform - Persana AI.
The platform aggregates over 100 data providers, similar to Clay’s multi-provider approach. But Persana goes further by tracking more than 75 intent signals, indicators that a prospect might be ready to buy. These signals include job changes, company funding rounds, technology adoption, hiring patterns, and dozens of other behavioral and firmographic triggers.
Where Persana truly differentiates is in its AI agents. Rather than simply cascading through data providers in a predetermined sequence, Persana’s AI agents can make dynamic decisions about which providers to query based on the characteristics of each individual lead. If the AI recognizes that a lead works at a European company, it might prioritize providers with strong European coverage. If the lead is in a highly regulated industry, the AI might route the query through compliance-friendly providers first. This intelligent routing optimizes both cost and coverage in ways that static waterfall sequences cannot.
Persana claims its AI-driven approach results in 95% more qualified leads and 65% shorter sales cycles compared to manual prospecting methods. These are impressive numbers, though as with any vendor’s self-reported statistics, they should be evaluated in the context of specific use cases and compared against independent benchmarks.
Pricing is positioned below Clay, making Persana an attractive option for teams that want sophisticated waterfall enrichment without the premium pricing. For startups and small sales teams that cannot justify Clay’s Pro tier but need more capability than basic email finders provide, Persana occupies a compelling middle ground.
Not every team needs the full complexity of Clay or Persana. FullEnrich strips the waterfall concept down to its essence: multi-provider email finding, and nothing else.
FullEnrich connects to multiple email finding providers and cascades through them automatically to maximize your email find rate. There are no workflow builders, no AI agents, no intent signals, no CRM integrations. You input leads, FullEnrich waterfalls through its provider network, and you get back verified email addresses. The simplicity is the point. For teams whose only enrichment need is finding more email addresses with higher accuracy, FullEnrich delivers the core waterfall benefit without the learning curve or cost of a full platform.
This single-purpose approach appeals to smaller sales teams, freelance consultants, and agencies that need high email coverage but lack the operational complexity that justifies a tool like Clay. It is also a natural entry point for teams that are new to the waterfall concept and want to experience the coverage improvement before investing in a comprehensive orchestration platform.
For technically capable teams, building a custom waterfall enrichment pipeline is entirely feasible. The basic architecture involves a queue of leads, a sequence of API integrations with data providers, conditional logic that decides when to cascade to the next provider, and a data store that collects and deduplicates results.
The advantage of a custom build is complete control over provider sequencing, cost optimization, and data handling. The disadvantage is significant development and maintenance time. Every provider API has its own quirks, rate limits, error handling requirements, and data formats. When a provider changes its API, your custom code breaks. When you want to add a new provider, you need development time.
For most organizations, the build-versus-buy calculation favors platforms like Clay or Persana. The time saved and the ongoing maintenance avoided more than justify the subscription cost. Custom builds make sense only for large organizations with specialized requirements that no off-the-shelf platform can meet, or for companies where data enrichment is so central to the business model that outsourcing it would create unacceptable vendor dependency.
The waterfall approach is still evolving rapidly. Several trends are shaping its near-term future.
First, AI-driven routing is replacing static sequences. Instead of configuring a fixed cascade order, Provider A then B then C, intelligent systems are learning which providers perform best for which types of leads and routing dynamically. This optimization happens automatically over time as the system observes which providers return results for which lead characteristics.
Second, real-time signals are being integrated into the waterfall itself. Rather than enriching leads with static data and separately monitoring intent signals, next-generation platforms are combining both into unified workflows. A lead might enter the waterfall because a real-time signal detected a job change, and the enrichment cascade is triggered automatically to gather updated contact information.
Third, compliance orchestration is becoming a waterfall concern. As privacy regulations multiply across jurisdictions, the waterfall needs to be aware of which providers are appropriate for which leads based on geographic and regulatory constraints. A lead in California requires different data handling than a lead in Texas, and a lead in Germany requires different handling still. Sophisticated waterfall platforms are beginning to incorporate compliance rules into their routing logic.
The waterfall enrichment revolution is ultimately about a shift in mindset. The old approach was to find the single best data provider and commit to it. The new approach recognizes that no single provider is best across all dimensions, and the optimal strategy is intelligent combination. This lesson extends beyond data enrichment to many aspects of modern business technology: the best solutions are often assemblies of specialized components rather than monolithic platforms. In the people data world, waterfall enrichment is how that assembly happens, and it is reshaping how every growth-oriented organization thinks about finding and reaching the people who matter most to their business.
The arrival of large language models into mainstream business tools has quietly rewritten the rules of people search. Before 2024, finding information about a specific person or building a list of prospects meant navigating rigid database interfaces, constructing Boolean queries with precise syntax, and manually cross-referencing results across multiple platforms. Today, you can type a sentence in plain English and get results that would have taken a skilled researcher hours to assemble. This shift is not incremental. It represents a fundamental change in how businesses discover, evaluate, and connect with people.
The most visible change is in how users interact with people search platforms. Traditional tools required you to think like a database. You would select filters from dropdown menus, choosing industry, job title, company size, geography, and seniority level one by one, hoping the intersection of your choices would produce a useful list. If the database did not have the exact filter you needed, you were stuck. There was no way to express nuance.
Large language models changed this by allowing natural language queries. Instead of clicking through filters, you can now type something like “find me VP of Engineering at Series B fintech companies in New York who previously worked at a big tech company.” The AI interprets your intent, maps it to the available data fields, infers what “big tech company” means in context, and returns results. This is not just a convenience improvement. It opens up entirely new categories of searches that were previously impossible with structured filters, because no database had a checkbox for “previously worked at a big tech company.”
Cognism was among the first major providers to build natural language search directly into their database interface, letting sales teams describe their ideal customer profile in everyday language rather than constructing elaborate filter combinations. Apollo followed with AI features that suggest leads matching your ideal customer profile and help craft personalized outreach messages. These are not bolt-on features. They represent a rethinking of what a search interface should be.
Behind the scenes, LLMs have become remarkably effective at extracting structured data from unstructured web pages. Consider the challenge of building a profile for someone who does not appear in any major database. Their information might be scattered across a company bio page, a conference speaker listing, a podcast guest appearance, and a few social media posts. Previously, a human researcher would need to visit each of these sources, read through the content, and manually extract the relevant details.
Modern AI systems can do this automatically. They crawl a web page, understand its layout and content, and extract specific data points like job title, company name, area of expertise, and contact information. They can distinguish between a person’s current role and a previous role mentioned in a bio. They can understand that “Jane leads our engineering team” means Jane’s title is likely something like VP of Engineering or Head of Engineering, even if no formal title is listed.
This capability is what powers tools like Clay’s Claygent, which is one of the most innovative applications of AI in people search today. Claygent is an AI agent built into Clay’s enrichment platform that can visit websites, read articles, and summarize findings for each lead in your list. If you need to know what technology stack a company uses, what their latest product launch was, or what a specific executive said in a recent interview, Claygent can research this automatically for every row in your spreadsheet. It handles the kind of nuanced, qualitative research that no API or database could previously provide.
One of the most persistent headaches in people data has been deduplication. When you pull data from multiple sources, the same person inevitably appears multiple times with slightly different information. John Smith at Acme Corp from LinkedIn might be Jonathan Smith at Acme Corporation from ZoomInfo, and J. Smith at ACME from a conference attendee list. Traditional matching relied on exact field comparisons or fuzzy string matching with rigid thresholds, and it missed a lot.
LLMs bring a different kind of intelligence to this problem. They understand that “VP Sales” and “Vice President of Sales” and “VP, Sales & Business Development” are essentially the same role. They can reason about whether two records with similar names but slightly different company names are likely the same person based on other contextual clues like location, industry, and career trajectory. This probabilistic, context-aware matching is dramatically more accurate than rule-based systems, and it means the profiles you work with are cleaner and more reliable.
The major people search platforms have all raced to integrate AI capabilities, though they have taken different approaches.
ZoomInfo launched Copilot as their flagship AI feature, positioning it as an assistant that processes both first-party data from your own CRM and website alongside ZoomInfo’s business intelligence database. The key innovation is timing. ZoomInfo Copilot does not just help you find people. It tries to identify the right prospects at the optimal moment to reach out, synthesizing signals like company news, funding announcements, technology installations, and hiring patterns to recommend when a prospect is most likely to be receptive.
Apollo has woven AI throughout its platform, from suggesting leads that match your ideal customer profile to helping craft personalized email sequences. Their AI can analyze a prospect’s LinkedIn activity, recent company news, and job history to generate outreach that references specific, relevant details. The effect is that a single sales rep can produce communication that feels individually researched at a scale that would have required a team of researchers just a few years ago.
LinkedIn has been integrating AI features into Sales Navigator, including AI-assisted message drafting and smarter lead recommendations. Given that LinkedIn sits on the largest professional dataset in the world, their AI features have a natural advantage in terms of data quality and coverage. However, LinkedIn has been relatively cautious in its AI rollout compared to smaller, more agile competitors, likely because of the platform’s sensitivity around user privacy and data usage.
A new category of tools has emerged that were built from the ground up around AI, rather than adding AI to existing databases. These are particularly important for developers and companies building their own people search systems.
Exa.ai, formerly known as Metaphor, is an AI-native search engine that uses embeddings for semantic understanding rather than traditional keyword matching. When you search Exa for people or companies, it understands the meaning behind your query, not just the words. Their Research API, launched in June 2025, achieved a 94.9 percent accuracy score on the SimpleQA benchmark, making it one of the most reliable AI search tools available. For companies building custom people search applications, Exa provides the underlying intelligence layer that makes natural language queries work - Exa.ai.
Tavily occupies a similar space, building a search engine specifically optimized for LLMs and retrieval-augmented generation applications. Their focus on reliability and compliance led them to achieve SOC 2 certification in 2025, which matters for enterprise customers who need assurance that their search queries and results are handled securely.
Perhaps the most ambitious new entrant is Parallel, founded by former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal. Parallel raised $100 million and reached a valuation of $740 million before even publicly launching its product in the traditional sense. Their Search API is designed specifically for AI applications, returning token-efficient, LLM-ready excerpts instead of traditional web links. With capacity for 600 requests per minute, Parallel is positioning itself as the search infrastructure layer for the next generation of AI-powered applications, including people search tools - Parallel Search.
The strengths of AI in people search cluster around tasks that require synthesis, personalization, and handling ambiguity. Synthesizing information from many sources into a coherent profile is something AI does remarkably well. A person’s professional identity is scattered across LinkedIn, company websites, GitHub repositories, conference talks, podcasts, news articles, patent filings, and social media. AI can pull these threads together into a unified view that captures not just their title and contact information but their expertise, interests, recent activities, and professional trajectory.
Natural language filtering of large databases is another clear strength. When a database contains hundreds of millions of records, the ability to describe what you are looking for in plain language rather than constructing complex filter combinations makes the tool accessible to a much wider range of users. A marketing manager who has never built a Boolean query can now find exactly the prospects they need.
Personalization at scale is perhaps the most commercially valuable application. AI can analyze a prospect’s profile, identify specific details worth referencing, and generate outreach messages that feel individually crafted. When done well, this dramatically improves response rates compared to generic templates.
Despite the enthusiasm, AI in people search has real and significant limitations that users need to understand. The most dangerous is hallucination. Large language models can and do fabricate information with complete confidence. An AI system might generate a plausible-sounding email address that does not exist, assign someone a job title they have never held, or associate a person with a company they have never worked for. Because the output looks authoritative, users may not think to verify it.
Outdated training data is another persistent problem. LLMs are trained on data from a specific period, and the professional world changes constantly. Someone who was VP of Engineering at Company X when the training data was collected may have left that role months ago. AI systems that rely on training data rather than real-time search will inevitably serve stale information, which in the context of people search can lead to embarrassing outreach to the wrong person at the wrong company.
Privacy and ethical concerns are growing. AI’s ability to aggregate, synthesize, and profile individuals raises legitimate questions about consent and appropriate use. Regulators in Europe and increasingly in the United States are paying attention to how AI systems collect and process personal data, and companies building or using AI-powered people search tools need to be mindful of this evolving landscape.
There is also the problem of disambiguation. AI struggles with common names. When you search for “Michael Johnson, software engineer in San Francisco,” an AI system may conflate information from multiple people with similar names. The overconfidence issue compounds this. AI tools rarely express uncertainty. They present their best guess as fact, without indicating how confident they are in the result or flagging cases where information from different sources conflicts.
If large language models changed how we search for people, AI agents are changing who does the searching. This distinction matters. An LLM-powered search tool still requires a human to initiate queries, review results, and decide what to do next. An AI agent operates autonomously. It can plan a research strategy, execute multi-step investigations across multiple sources, evaluate what it finds, adjust its approach based on results, and deliver a finished product. In the context of people search, this means an agent can take a brief like “find me the Head of IT at mid-market healthcare companies in the Midwest who are currently evaluating new EHR systems” and come back with a researched, verified list complete with contact information, company context, and personalization notes.
This is not a theoretical future. It is happening now, and the pace of adoption in 2025 and 2026 has been staggering.
To appreciate what AI agents mean for people search, it helps to understand how they differ from the AI features discussed in the previous section. A traditional AI-powered search tool is reactive. You give it a query, it returns results. An AI agent is proactive and autonomous. It receives an objective, then independently decides what steps to take, which sources to consult, how to interpret results, and when to try alternative approaches if the initial strategy does not work.
Think of it as the difference between a search engine and a research assistant. A search engine responds to queries. A research assistant understands your broader goal, plans a research strategy, gathers information from multiple sources, cross-references findings, identifies gaps, fills those gaps with additional research, and presents you with a synthesized report. AI agents are the software equivalent of that research assistant.
The multi-step reasoning capability is what makes agents particularly powerful for people search. Finding high-quality information about a person often requires a chain of decisions. You might start on LinkedIn, discover that the person recently changed companies, go to the new company’s website to confirm their role, check Crunchbase to understand the company’s funding stage, look at the company’s tech stack on BuiltWith, find the person’s email format using Hunter, verify the email using a separate verification tool, and then check for recent social media activity to find personalization angles. An agent can execute this entire chain autonomously.
The sales development function has been the first major arena where AI agents have gone mainstream, for a simple reason. Outbound sales development is a high-volume, process-driven activity that involves finding people, researching them, and contacting them with personalized messages. It is also expensive to staff with humans. A typical sales development representative in the United States costs $70,000 to $100,000 per year in total compensation, handles a limited number of prospects per day, and turns over frequently. The economic case for AI agents in this role is compelling.
11x.ai has emerged as one of the most prominent players in this space. Their flagship product is an AI SDR named Alice that autonomously researches prospects, personalizes outreach, and handles initial responses. They later introduced Mike, an AI agent for phone outreach. The company has raised over $50 million in funding, and their positioning as “hire AI digital workers” captures the trend. Businesses are not just buying software tools. They are hiring artificial employees that perform specific job functions end to end.
Artisan takes a similar approach with their AI sales agent named Ava. Artisan raised $25 million in a Series A round, and Ava handles the complete outbound prospecting workflow. She researches prospects using web data and internal databases, writes personalized emails that reference specific details about the prospect and their company, sends those emails on a schedule, follows up if there is no response, and routes engaged prospects to human sales reps. The human only enters the conversation when there is genuine interest to pursue.
AiSDR is another entrant in this space, focusing on automating the prospect research and outreach cycle with tight CRM integration. What distinguishes these platforms from the enrichment tools discussed in earlier sections is autonomy. You do not tell these agents which leads to research or what to write. You define your ideal customer profile and your value proposition, and the agent handles the rest.
Persana AI has taken a multi-agent approach, deploying specialized agents for different functions. Their inbound reply agent handles responses from prospects. Their outbound prospecting agent finds and contacts new leads. Their RevOps agent handles data cleanup and CRM management. Each agent is a specialist, but they work together as a coordinated system.
The concept of multiple specialized agents working together is one of the most important developments in 2025 and 2026. Rather than building a single, all-powerful agent, the industry is moving toward orchestrated systems where a “puppeteer” or orchestrator agent coordinates specialist agents, each handling a specific subtask. One agent might specialize in web research, another in data extraction, another in writing personalized messages, and another in analyzing buyer intent signals. The orchestrator decides which specialists to deploy and in what order based on the task at hand.
The growth in interest has been remarkable. Gartner reported a 1,445 percent surge in inquiries about multi-agent systems from the first quarter of 2024 to the second quarter of 2025. They predict that 40 percent of enterprise applications will embed AI agents by the end of 2026, up from less than 5 percent in 2025. The AI agent market, valued at $7.84 billion in 2025, is projected to reach $52.62 billion by 2030, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 46.3 percent - Master of Code AI Agent Statistics.
For people search specifically, the multi-agent approach means that finding and enriching a contact is no longer a single database query but a coordinated research effort. One agent might search LinkedIn. Another might scrape the company website. A third might check news articles for recent mentions. A fourth might verify contact information. And a fifth might synthesize everything into a profile with personalization notes. This distributed approach produces richer, more accurate results than any single data source could provide.
The practical implications of AI agents for people search are profound. Consider the difference between querying a database and deploying a research agent.
When you query a traditional database like ZoomInfo or Apollo, you are searching against a snapshot of data that was collected at some point in the past. The database might be updated monthly, weekly, or even daily, but there is always a lag. If someone changed jobs last week, the database probably does not know yet. If a small startup launched yesterday, it will not be in the database for months. And if the person you are looking for works at a niche company or in an emerging industry that the database does not cover well, you will get no results at all.
An AI agent does not have these limitations because it researches in real time. Instead of querying a pre-built database, it browses the live web. It can check a company’s current team page to verify that someone still works there. It can find people at companies that are too small or too new to appear in any database. It can discover information in places that traditional data providers do not index, like podcast transcripts, conference agendas, GitHub commit histories, or niche industry forums.
Cross-source synthesis is another major advantage. An agent does not just find a person’s name, title, and email. It builds a comprehensive understanding by pulling information from multiple sources and weaving it together. It might discover from LinkedIn that a prospect recently posted about cloud migration challenges, from a conference listing that they are speaking at an industry event next month, from their company’s press page that they just closed a funding round, and from a job posting that their company is hiring for the exact role your product serves. All of this context makes the eventual outreach dramatically more relevant and effective.
Agents are also adaptive in a way that database queries cannot be. If an agent searches for someone on LinkedIn and does not find a match, it does not simply return no results. It tries alternative approaches. It might search Google, check the company website, look at industry directories, or try variations of the person’s name. This adaptability is particularly valuable for international markets, niche industries, and small companies where traditional databases have poor coverage.
Despite the excitement, AI agents in people search have significant limitations that deserve honest discussion. Speed is the most obvious. A database query returns results in milliseconds. An agent that browses multiple websites, reads content, and synthesizes findings might take 30 seconds to several minutes per person. For individual research, this is fine. For building large lists of thousands of contacts, it can be prohibitively slow.
Cost is another consideration. Every step an agent takes involves API calls to language models, web scraping services, and various data sources. Researching a single prospect might cost anywhere from a few cents to a few dollars, depending on the depth of research. At scale, these costs add up quickly and can exceed the per-record pricing of traditional databases.
Reliability remains a challenge. AI agents can hallucinate, misattribute information from one person to another, or get confused by ambiguous web pages. They can be blocked by websites that detect automated access. They can follow incorrect reasoning chains that lead to confidently wrong conclusions. And unlike a database query where you can trace exactly where each data point came from, an agent’s research process can be difficult to audit. If an agent tells you that someone’s email is jane@company.com, it can be hard to determine whether that was extracted from a reliable source or inferred from a pattern - The Conversation - AI Agents in 2025.
Enterprise readiness is still a work in progress. Large organizations need predictable results, audit trails, compliance guarantees, and reliable uptime. AI agents, by their nature, produce variable results depending on what they find during their research. Two runs of the same query might produce slightly different outputs. This variability makes some enterprise buyers hesitant, particularly in regulated industries where data provenance matters.
The most effective approach in 2026 is a hybrid one. Use traditional databases and enrichment APIs for the bulk of your prospecting where speed and scale matter, and deploy AI agents for the high-value research tasks where depth and nuance are worth the extra time and cost. Over time, as agents become faster, cheaper, and more reliable, the balance will shift. But the idea that agents will completely replace databases in the near term is more marketing narrative than practical reality.
Everything discussed so far has been about finding people and learning about them. Intent data adds a critical dimension: knowing when those people are actually interested in what you are selling. This is the difference between having a list of a thousand prospects who match your ideal customer profile and knowing which ten of those thousand are actively researching solutions like yours right now. If people search tells you who to contact, intent data tells you when to contact them, and that timing can be the difference between a productive conversation and an ignored email.
Intent data, at its core, is behavioral evidence that a person or company is showing interest in a particular topic, product category, or solution. The concept is straightforward. If the VP of IT at a mid-market healthcare company has been reading articles about cloud security, downloading whitepapers about HIPAA compliance tools, visiting comparison pages on software review sites, and attending webinars about data protection, there is a good chance they are evaluating cloud security solutions. If your company sells cloud security tools, this person is a far better prospect right now than someone with the exact same job title who has shown no such interest.
The power of intent data lies in its ability to prioritize. Without it, salespeople treat all prospects equally, reaching out to everyone in their territory or on their list and hoping for the best. With intent data, they can focus their energy on the people and companies that are most likely to be in an active buying cycle. Study after study has shown that the first vendor to engage a buyer during their research phase has a significant advantage in winning the deal. Intent data helps you be that first vendor.
Intent data comes in three varieties, each with different characteristics, strengths, and limitations.
First-party intent data is the behavior people exhibit on your own digital properties. When someone visits your pricing page, downloads a case study, watches a product demo video, or fills out a contact form, those are first-party intent signals. This data is the highest quality because it directly involves your brand and products. The challenge is volume. Only a small fraction of your potential market will ever visit your website, so first-party data alone gives you a very narrow view.
Second-party intent data comes from partner websites and platforms, most notably software review sites like G2 and TrustRadius. When a buyer visits G2.com and reads reviews of products in your category, compares your product against competitors, or views your product profile, G2 captures this activity and can share it with you as intent signals. This data is extremely valuable because someone actively comparing products on a review site is deep in an evaluation process. They are not casually browsing. They are making a purchasing decision.
Third-party intent data is the broadest category. It tracks research behavior across large networks of websites that a person visits in the normal course of their work. The idea is that if people at a particular company are reading significantly more articles about, say, “CRM implementation” than they normally do, the company is likely evaluating CRM solutions. This data requires aggregation across many websites and sophisticated analysis to separate meaningful signals from noise.
Bombora essentially created the third-party B2B intent data category. Their data asset is built on a cooperative model. Over 5,000 B2B media websites and content publishers contribute anonymous behavioral data to Bombora, and in return, they get access to the aggregated intent insights. About 70 percent of this content network is exclusive to Bombora, meaning no other intent data provider can replicate their dataset.
The core product is the Company Surge score. Bombora tracks the content consumption behavior of companies across its network and establishes a baseline for each company. When a company’s research activity on a particular topic suddenly increases above its normal baseline, Bombora flags this as a “surge,” indicating that someone at that company is actively researching that topic. The surge is measured at the company level rather than the individual level, which is an important distinction. You know that “Acme Corporation” is researching cloud security, but you do not know which specific person at Acme is doing the research. This is where people search tools come in. You use intent data to identify the company, then use people search to find the right decision-makers at that company.
Bombora’s data feeds into many other platforms. Their partnership with 6sense is particularly noteworthy, as it combines Bombora’s third-party intent signals with 6sense’s own first-party and proprietary data to create a more complete picture of buyer intent - Bombora and 6sense Integration.
6sense has positioned itself as a “Revenue AI” platform, and their approach to intent data is more ambitious than simply tracking which topics a company is researching. 6sense attempts to predict where a company is in its buying journey. Their model breaks the journey into stages: awareness, consideration, decision, and purchase. By analyzing a combination of first-party website behavior, Bombora third-party intent signals, proprietary data from their own tracking network, and patterns from historical buying data, 6sense assigns each account to a stage.
This is powerful because the appropriate sales and marketing response varies dramatically by stage. A company in the awareness stage might respond well to educational content. A company in the decision stage needs competitive differentiation and a demo. Knowing the stage lets you tailor your approach accordingly.
The platform is enterprise-grade in both capability and pricing. Annual contracts typically range from $60,000 to $150,000 or more, depending on the size of the deployment and the features included. This puts 6sense out of reach for smaller companies, but for mid-market and enterprise organizations, the ability to prioritize accounts based on predicted buying stage can be transformational.
Intent data from software review sites is uniquely valuable because of the context in which it is generated. When someone visits G2.com and reads reviews of products in your software category, they are almost certainly evaluating solutions. This is not casual browsing. This is someone doing homework before a purchase decision.
G2 Buyer Intent captures which companies are viewing your product category, your specific product page, and your competitors’ pages on G2. It also tracks which companies are reading comparison pages between products. If you sell project management software and G2 tells you that Acme Corp has viewed the “project management” category page, read reviews of three competitors, and visited your comparison page, that is an extraordinarily strong signal.
TrustRadius offers similar intent capabilities from their own review platform. Because the two platforms have different user bases and review content, the signals complement each other. Companies serious about their intent data strategy sometimes use both.
Both platforms integrate with major CRM and sales engagement tools, so the intent signals can flow directly into the workflows where salespeople are already working. When a sales rep opens their Salesforce dashboard in the morning and sees that three of their target accounts were researching their product category on G2 yesterday, they know exactly who to call first.
Warmly represents a newer approach to intent data that focuses on real-time identification and action. When someone visits your website, Warmly attempts to identify who they are, both at the company level and, in some cases, at the individual level. They claim to de-anonymize approximately 65 percent of company visitors and around 15 percent of individual visitors.
What makes Warmly interesting is the real-time aspect. Most intent data operates on a delay. Bombora data might be days old. 6sense predictive scores update periodically. But Warmly tells you who is on your website right now, which pages they are viewing, and how engaged they are. Their AI can then orchestrate immediate outreach, whether that is triggering a chatbot interaction, sending a personalized email, or alerting a sales rep to pick up the phone while the prospect is still actively browsing - Warmly.ai.
Warmly combines multiple data layers. They use first-party website behavior as the primary signal, then enrich it with LinkedIn social activity data and Bombora third-party intent data to build a more complete picture. Their free plan allows identification of 500 visitors per month, making it accessible for companies that want to test the concept. Paid plans start at roughly $700 per month and scale up based on volume and features - Warmly AI on Salesforge Directory.
UserGems has built its entire business around a single, powerful insight: when people change jobs, they often bring their preferred tools and vendors with them. If someone was a happy customer of your product at Company A and they just moved to Company B, there is a strong probability that they will want to implement your product at their new company as well. This makes job change tracking one of the most reliable buying signals available.
UserGems monitors your existing customers, users, and prospects, and alerts you when they change companies. But they go beyond simple job change alerts. They track 21 or more native contact and account-level signals that indicate buying propensity, and they integrate directly into CRMs so that the signals trigger automated workflows. When a champion moves to a new company, UserGems can automatically create a new contact record, associate it with the new account, score the opportunity, and route it to the appropriate sales rep.
The pricing reflects the enterprise focus. UserGems starts at $30,000 per year for the base plan, with Advanced and Elite tiers priced at $69,000 and $120,000 per year respectively. This is a significant investment, but companies using UserGems report that “champion tracking” deals convert at significantly higher rates than cold outreach, which makes the ROI straightforward to calculate - UserGems Pricing.
For companies that want job change tracking without the enterprise price tag, LoneScale offers a more affordable alternative that covers many of the same use cases. The core concept is the same: tracking when people in your network change roles and companies, then using that as a trigger for outreach.
The challenge with intent data is not collecting it. It is making it actionable. Many companies invest in intent data platforms and then fail to integrate the signals into their actual sales and marketing workflows. The data sits in a dashboard that nobody checks, or it creates alerts that nobody acts on.
The most successful implementations treat intent data as a prioritization layer on top of their existing people search and outreach processes. The workflow looks something like this: intent data identifies which accounts are showing buying signals, people search tools identify the right contacts at those accounts, enrichment tools provide contact information and personalization details, and outreach tools deliver timely, relevant messages. Each layer depends on the others. Intent data without people search gives you companies but not contacts. People search without intent data gives you contacts but no sense of timing. The combination is where the real value lives.
The convergence of intent data with AI agents is an emerging trend that promises to make this even more powerful. Imagine an AI agent that monitors your intent data feeds, automatically identifies when a high-value account starts showing surge signals, researches the right contacts at that account, enriches their profiles with personalization data, drafts tailored outreach, and queues it for human review. Several platforms are moving in this direction, and by late 2026, this kind of automated, intent-driven prospecting will likely be commonplace.
Recruiting and sales prospecting are two sides of the same coin. Both involve finding specific people, learning about them, and persuading them to take action. The tools, data sources, and techniques overlap significantly. Yet recruiting has its own unique requirements, platforms, and dynamics that deserve separate treatment. If you are a recruiter, a hiring manager, or a company trying to build a team, this section covers the technology landscape you need to understand.
No discussion of recruiting technology can begin anywhere other than LinkedIn. With over one billion members as of 2025, LinkedIn is the single largest professional database in the world, and it is where the vast majority of recruiting searches start. LinkedIn offers two primary products for recruiters, and understanding the difference matters.
LinkedIn Recruiter is the dedicated hiring product. It comes in two tiers. Recruiter Lite costs approximately $170 per month and includes 30 InMails per month along with a set of search filters that goes beyond what free LinkedIn offers. Recruiter Corporate, the full-featured product, costs roughly $835 per month and includes 150 InMails per month, advanced search filters, collaboration features for recruiting teams, and integration with applicant tracking systems. LinkedIn has been adding AI features to Recruiter, including AI-assisted message drafting that helps compose personalized InMails and AI-powered candidate recommendations that suggest profiles similar to candidates you have already expressed interest in - LinkedIn Sales Blog.
LinkedIn Sales Navigator is the other LinkedIn premium product, and while it was designed for sales professionals, many recruiters use it as well because it offers powerful people search capabilities at a lower price point. Sales Navigator Core starts at $99 per month, Advanced at $149 per month, and Advanced Plus at $1,600 per year for teams. It provides over 40 search filters, saved lead lists, buyer intent signals, and Smart Links for tracking content engagement. For recruiters whose primary need is finding and learning about candidates rather than the full recruiting workflow, Sales Navigator can be a cost-effective alternative to Recruiter.
The limitation of LinkedIn for recruiting is increasingly about saturation. Because every recruiter uses LinkedIn, candidates on the platform receive a high volume of InMails and connection requests. Response rates have been declining steadily as candidates become desensitized to recruiter outreach. This has pushed forward-thinking recruiting teams to adopt multi-channel approaches and invest in tools that help them find candidates through other sources.
Several platforms have been built specifically to address the limitations of relying solely on LinkedIn for talent search.
hireEZ, which was formerly known as Hiretual, is an AI-powered talent sourcing platform that searches across 45 or more platforms simultaneously. Rather than limiting your search to one data source, hireEZ aggregates profiles from LinkedIn, GitHub, Stack Overflow, personal websites, academic publications, patent databases, and dozens of other sources into a single searchable interface. With over 800 million profiles indexed, hireEZ provides a breadth of candidate data that rivals LinkedIn’s own database. Their EZ Rediscovery feature is particularly clever. It resurfaces past applicants from your existing applicant tracking system who might be a good fit for current openings, helping you mine your own historical candidate data rather than always starting from scratch. The platform also includes a Boolean search builder with AI assistance, which helps recruiters construct precise search queries without needing to master Boolean syntax.
SeekOut is another AI-powered talent intelligence platform, with particular strength in diversity sourcing. SeekOut’s search capabilities let recruiters filter candidates by skills, experience, and background in ways that help build diverse candidate pipelines, which is an increasingly important requirement for many organizations. Their deep integration with GitHub and patent data makes SeekOut especially valuable for technical recruiting, where understanding a candidate’s actual work product matters more than their resume bullet points. With over 800 million public profiles in their database, SeekOut provides comprehensive coverage across industries and geographies.
Eightfold.ai takes a fundamentally different approach to talent search. Rather than matching candidates based on keywords in their resume or profile, Eightfold uses deep learning models to understand skills, career trajectories, and potential. Their system can identify candidates who have the right underlying capabilities for a role even if their resume does not use the exact keywords a recruiter might search for. This skills-based matching is a significant advancement because it reduces the chances of overlooking qualified candidates who simply describe their experience differently. Eightfold is used primarily by large enterprises and has achieved a valuation of $2.1 billion as of their last funding round, reflecting the market’s confidence in the AI-native approach to talent intelligence.
Finding candidates is only half the battle. Engaging them effectively and managing the relationship over time is equally important. Several platforms focus specifically on this part of the recruiting workflow.
Gem has established itself as a leading talent engagement platform, essentially a CRM for recruiting. Gem helps recruiting teams track their interactions with candidates across email, LinkedIn, and other channels. It provides pipeline analytics that show how candidates are progressing through the recruiting funnel, where bottlenecks exist, and which sourcing channels produce the best results. Strong integrations with major applicant tracking systems mean that Gem fits into existing recruiting workflows rather than requiring teams to adopt an entirely new process.
Beamery operates at a higher strategic level, focusing on talent lifecycle management. While Gem helps with the tactical work of engaging candidates for specific roles, Beamery helps organizations think about talent more holistically. Their AI-powered platform supports strategic workforce planning, helping companies understand what skills they have, what skills they need, and where the gaps are. For large enterprises, this kind of talent intelligence is becoming essential for long-term competitiveness.
Despite all the AI advances discussed throughout this guide, Boolean search remains a core skill in recruiting. This might seem surprising, but the reality is that most recruiting platforms, including LinkedIn Recruiter, still use Boolean logic as the foundation of their search infrastructure. AI makes it easier to construct Boolean queries, and natural language interfaces can translate your intent into Boolean expressions behind the scenes, but understanding how Boolean search works gives you more control and better results.
The basics are simple. AND narrows your search by requiring multiple criteria. OR broadens it by accepting any of several criteria. NOT excludes unwanted results. Parentheses group terms together to control the logic. Quotation marks require exact phrases. The power comes from combining these operators to construct precise queries. A search like ((“software engineer” OR “software developer”) AND (“machine learning” OR “deep learning”) AND (“Python” OR “PyTorch”) NOT “intern” NOT “junior”) will find experienced software engineers with machine learning skills who use Python, while excluding interns and junior-level candidates.
X-ray searching is a Boolean technique that uses Google to search within a specific website, most commonly LinkedIn. The search query “site:linkedin.com/in ‘software engineer’ ‘san francisco’ ‘machine learning’” tells Google to search only within LinkedIn profile pages for profiles that contain those terms. This technique is particularly useful because it can sometimes surface profiles that LinkedIn’s own search does not return, and it works without a LinkedIn Recruiter subscription. Experienced recruiters often use X-ray searches as a complement to their paid LinkedIn tools.
The key thing to understand is that Boolean search and AI search are not in competition. They are complementary. AI helps you discover what to search for and interprets ambiguous intent. Boolean search gives you precise control when you know exactly what you want. The best recruiters use both.
Chrome extensions have become an integral part of the modern recruiter’s workflow, creating a bridge between LinkedIn browsing and candidate data enrichment. When a recruiter finds an interesting profile on LinkedIn, they need two things quickly: the person’s direct contact information and additional context beyond what LinkedIn shows.
Nearly all the major people data providers discussed earlier in this guide offer Chrome extensions that serve recruiters. Lusha, Apollo, and RocketReach all have extensions that overlay LinkedIn profiles with additional data, showing email addresses and phone numbers directly on the page. This eliminates the need to switch between LinkedIn and a separate database interface, saving significant time when a recruiter is reviewing dozens of profiles per hour.
The hireEZ extension goes a step further, aggregating contact data from multiple sources and displaying it alongside GitHub contributions, patent filings, and other professional signals that help recruiters evaluate technical candidates more deeply. For engineering hiring in particular, being able to see a candidate’s actual code contributions and open-source activity directly alongside their LinkedIn profile is enormously valuable.
These extensions do raise data accuracy questions. The contact information they display comes from the same databases discussed earlier in this guide, with all the same freshness and accuracy challenges. An email displayed via a Chrome extension is no more or less reliable than the same email found by logging into the provider’s platform directly. Recruiters should verify critical contact details before using them for outreach, especially for high-priority candidates where a wrong email or phone number means a missed opportunity.
One of the most significant trends in 2025 and 2026 is the growing convergence between sales technology and recruiting technology. This convergence is happening at multiple levels, and understanding it helps both sales and recruiting professionals make better technology decisions.
At the data level, the distinction between “sales data” and “recruiting data” is dissolving. The information needed to sell to someone and the information needed to recruit someone are largely the same: name, current company, job title, career history, email address, phone number, skills, interests, and location. Data providers like Apollo, Lusha, and RocketReach recognized this early and market their platforms to both audiences. When you buy a subscription to Apollo, you are not buying a “sales database” or a “recruiting database.” You are buying access to people data that serves either purpose.
At the technology level, the AI capabilities that make modern sales tools powerful are the same ones that power modern recruiting tools. Natural language search, AI-generated outreach, automated sequencing, intent signals, and agent-based research are all relevant to both use cases. A tool that can write a personalized sales email based on a prospect’s LinkedIn activity can just as easily write a personalized recruiting InMail based on a candidate’s career trajectory.
At the workflow level, the processes are increasingly similar. Both sales and recruiting involve building targeted lists of people, enriching those lists with additional data, crafting personalized outreach, managing multi-touch sequences, tracking engagement, and nurturing relationships over time. CRM concepts that were once exclusively associated with sales, like pipeline stages, lead scoring, and automated follow-ups, have been adopted wholesale by recruiting teams.
This convergence means that organizations evaluating people search technology should think broadly about their needs. A platform purchased by the sales team might be equally valuable for recruiting, and vice versa. Companies that allow their sales and recruiting teams to share a common data infrastructure can avoid duplicate subscriptions, maintain cleaner data, and benefit from shared learning about which tools and approaches work best.
The practical implication for technology buyers is clear. When evaluating any people search platform, ask whether it serves both sales and recruiting use cases. If it does, the total cost of ownership may be significantly lower than maintaining separate tool stacks for each team. As the underlying data and AI capabilities continue to converge, the tools that serve both audiences well will likely win market share from those that serve only one.
There is an entire world of people-search capability that exists outside the polished dashboards of commercial platforms, and it is built on a simple premise: an enormous amount of information about individuals is already publicly available if you know where to look and how to connect the dots. This world is called Open Source Intelligence, or OSINT, and it has grown from a niche discipline practiced by government analysts and private investigators into a mainstream approach used by journalists, security researchers, recruiters, and sales professionals alike.
OSINT does not mean hacking. It does not mean accessing private databases or breaking into accounts. It means systematically gathering, analyzing, and correlating information from sources that anyone can access — social media profiles, public records, forum posts, code repositories, domain registrations, and thousands of other data points that people leave behind as they move through the digital world. The “intelligence” part comes not from the data itself, which is freely available, but from the methods used to find it, cross-reference it, and draw meaningful conclusions from scattered fragments.
What makes OSINT particularly relevant in 2026 is that the commercial people-search platforms covered earlier in this guide ultimately rely on many of the same public sources. The difference is that those platforms have automated the collection and packaged it into user-friendly interfaces with monthly subscriptions. OSINT tools, many of which are free and open source, give you access to similar raw capabilities — but they require more technical comfort and more manual effort to use effectively. For organizations with technical staff and limited budgets, or for anyone who wants to understand how the sausage gets made, OSINT tools are invaluable.
The most popular entry point into OSINT for people search is a tool called Sherlock, a free Python program that does one thing extraordinarily well: given a username, it checks whether that username exists on over four hundred social networks and websites. If you know that someone uses the handle “jdoe_creative” on one platform, Sherlock will tell you every other platform where that same handle appears — from mainstream sites like Twitter and Instagram to niche communities like Keybase, Letterboxd, and hundreds of regional social networks most people have never heard of.
Sherlock has accumulated over fifty thousand stars on GitHub, making it one of the most popular OSINT tools ever created. Its appeal lies in its simplicity. You install it, type a username, and within a minute or two, you have a comprehensive map of someone’s social media footprint. For recruiters trying to learn more about a candidate, investigators building a profile of a subject, or journalists researching a source, this kind of cross-platform mapping can be extraordinarily useful.
The tool has real limitations, though. You need to already know a username, which means it is a research deepening tool rather than a discovery tool. And usernames are not unique identifiers — “john_smith” on Twitter may be an entirely different person than “john_smith” on Reddit. Sherlock finds matches but cannot confirm identity, so every result requires human judgment to verify.
Where Sherlock searches four hundred sites, Maigret searches over three thousand. Originally built as a fork of Sherlock, Maigret has evolved into a significantly more capable tool with better accuracy, more sophisticated detection of false positives, and the ability to generate polished reports in multiple formats including HTML, PDF, and JSON. It can also extract additional profile information beyond just confirming that an account exists — pulling bios, profile pictures, and other publicly visible details when available.
Maigret’s growing community has been steadily adding new sites and improving detection methods, and for anyone serious about username-based OSINT, it has become the preferred tool over the original Sherlock. The trade-off is that searching three thousand sites takes longer than searching four hundred, but the depth of coverage — including many country-specific platforms and obscure forums — makes it worthwhile for thorough investigations.
SpiderFoot operates at a different level of sophistication. Rather than focusing on a single technique like username searching, it is a full automation platform with over two hundred modules that can collect data from dozens of different source types. Give SpiderFoot a person’s name, email address, phone number, or any other starting point, and it will fan out across the internet, querying search engines, DNS records, social media APIs, breach databases, WHOIS records, and many other sources to build a comprehensive intelligence picture.
What sets SpiderFoot apart is its ability to map relationships between entities. It does not just find data points in isolation — it shows you how a person connects to companies, how companies connect to domains, how domains connect to IP addresses, and how all of these relationships interweave. The open source version provides substantial capability, while the commercial SpiderFoot HX version adds a web-based interface, team collaboration features, and additional data sources.
SpiderFoot operates in both passive and active modes. Passive reconnaissance only queries third-party services and databases, leaving no trace that you searched for someone. Active reconnaissance directly interacts with target systems — visiting websites, performing DNS lookups against their infrastructure — which may be logged. For most people-search purposes, passive mode provides what you need without any risk of detection.
TheHarvester focuses specifically on gathering email addresses, subdomains, hosts, and employee names associated with a domain or organization. It pulls data from search engines, PGP key servers, and professional networking sites, making it particularly useful for mapping out the people within a specific company. If you need to identify all publicly discoverable employees of a target organization, theHarvester is one of the fastest ways to build that initial list.
Recon-ng takes a different architectural approach. It is designed as a modular framework — similar in concept to how security testing frameworks work — where you install individual modules for different data sources and chain them together into workflows. This makes it extremely flexible but also more complex to set up and use. It appeals primarily to technical users who want fine-grained control over their reconnaissance process and the ability to build custom collection pipelines.
Maltego occupies a unique position in the OSINT landscape because it is fundamentally a visualization tool. While other tools produce lists and reports, Maltego produces interactive graphs that show entities — people, companies, phone numbers, email addresses, social accounts, domains — as nodes connected by relationship lines. This visual approach makes it dramatically easier to spot patterns and connections that would be invisible in tabular data.
Maltego is not open source. It is a commercial product used extensively by law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and corporate investigation teams. However, it offers a free Community Edition with limited functionality that is sufficient for many research purposes. The power of Maltego comes from its “transforms” — automated queries that pull data from various sources and add it to your graph. You start with a single entity, run transforms to discover connected entities, then run more transforms on those discoveries, progressively building out a rich intelligence picture.
For people search specifically, you might start with a name, discover associated email addresses through one transform, find social media accounts linked to those emails through another, identify companies associated with those accounts through a third, and within minutes have a visual map of someone’s professional and social footprint that would take hours to compile manually. The graph-based approach also makes it easy to spot when two seemingly unrelated investigations converge on shared connections — a capability that flat databases simply cannot replicate.
The world of software development has created an unusually transparent professional environment. Unlike most professions where work product is hidden behind corporate walls, developers often contribute to public repositories, answer questions on public forums, and maintain public profiles that reveal not just what they claim to do, but what they actually do. This transparency has spawned an entire subcategory of people-search tools focused specifically on developer intelligence.
GitHub has become the de facto resume for software developers worldwide, and it contains far more signal than a traditional resume ever could. A developer’s GitHub profile reveals which programming languages they actually use (not just which ones they list on their resume), how frequently they contribute code, what kinds of projects they work on, how they collaborate with others through pull requests and code reviews, and how their work is received by the community through stars and forks.
GitRoll has emerged as an AI-powered platform that analyzes GitHub profiles and generates developer assessments. Rather than requiring a recruiter to manually review hundreds of repositories, GitRoll automatically evaluates code quality, contribution patterns, technology breadth, and community engagement to produce a digestible profile summary. For technical recruiting teams, this kind of automated analysis can dramatically accelerate candidate evaluation.
Sourcegraph provides code search across millions of public repositories, which creates an unusual people-search capability: you can search for developers by their actual expertise rather than by their self-described skills. If you need someone who has written production-quality code for a specific library, framework, or technical pattern, Sourcegraph can find developers who have actually done that work — a far more reliable signal than keyword matching on resumes.
Stack Overflow’s public Q&A database represents one of the most valuable signals of developer expertise available anywhere. A developer’s answer history, reputation score, and the topics they engage with provide genuine evidence of their knowledge depth in specific technologies. While Stack Overflow shut down its dedicated Talent recruiting product, the profile data and activity history remain publicly visible and searchable, making it a rich OSINT source for technical recruiting.
Developer activity extends across many other communities as well — technical blogs, conference talk videos, podcast appearances, open source project maintainership, and participation in platforms like Dev.to, Hashnode, and specialized Discord servers. Each of these public touchpoints adds to the composite picture that OSINT techniques can assemble about a technical professional.
Several commercial services have built structured databases specifically around developer profiles. Coresignal tracks developer activity across multiple platforms and provides API access to enriched profiles that combine data from GitHub, LinkedIn, Stack Overflow, and other sources. The GitHub API itself provides free, rate-limited access to public profile data, contribution history, and repository information for any GitHub user. GitLab offers similar API access for its user base.
These APIs form the foundation that many recruiting tools and talent intelligence platforms are built upon. When a product claims to have data on millions of developers, it is typically aggregating from these public APIs combined with web scraping of public profiles — the same sources available to anyone with the technical knowledge to use them directly.
Beneath the surface of virtually every people-data platform — from ZoomInfo to the smallest startup — lies proxy infrastructure. When a company needs to collect public data from millions of web pages, it cannot simply send millions of requests from its own servers. Websites would quickly detect the pattern and block the IP addresses. Instead, data companies route their requests through vast networks of proxy servers that make each request appear to come from a different location and a different user.
Bright Data operates the largest proxy network in the industry with over seventy-two million residential IP addresses — meaning its requests appear to come from real home internet connections rather than data center servers. This makes the traffic nearly indistinguishable from regular human browsing. Oxylabs maintains a pool of over one hundred million proxies and has built a strong reputation for reliability in enterprise data collection. Smartproxy offers over fifty-five million residential IPs at more accessible price points, making it popular with mid-sized data operations. IPRoyal provides budget-friendly options that serve smaller teams and individual researchers - Bright Data.
Understanding that this proxy infrastructure exists is important for anyone evaluating people-search tools because it explains both how data is collected and why data quality varies. A platform using premium proxy infrastructure with sophisticated rotation and fingerprint management will successfully collect fresher, more complete data than one cutting corners on its collection infrastructure.
Proxy networks handle the network layer, but many websites require an actual browser to render their content — pages built with JavaScript frameworks do not reveal their data to simple HTTP requests. Browser automation tools solve this by controlling real browser instances programmatically, allowing software to navigate pages, click buttons, scroll through content, and extract data just as a human user would.
Playwright, developed by Microsoft, has become the modern standard for browser automation. It supports Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, runs faster than older alternatives, and provides reliable automation even for complex single-page applications. Puppeteer, developed by Google, focuses specifically on Chrome and Chromium automation and remains widely used despite Playwright’s growing dominance. Selenium is the oldest of the three, with the broadest language support and largest existing codebase, though it is generally considered slower and less reliable than the newer tools.
Combined with proxy networks, these browser automation tools form the complete technology stack that data providers use to collect public profile information at scale. A typical collection pipeline might use Playwright to control a browser that navigates to a public LinkedIn profile page, rendered through a rotating Bright Data proxy, extracts the visible information, and stores it in a database — repeated millions of times across millions of profiles.
Websites are not passive participants in this process. A sophisticated and constantly evolving ecosystem of anti-bot technology exists specifically to detect and block automated data collection. Cloudflare Bot Management is the most widely deployed protection, using browser fingerprinting, behavioral analysis, and machine learning to distinguish human visitors from automated scrapers. DataDome specializes in AI-powered bot detection that can identify sophisticated scraping attempts that bypass simpler protections. HUMAN Security, formerly PerimeterX, focuses on behavioral analysis — detecting the subtle differences between how humans and bots interact with pages. Akamai Bot Manager provides enterprise-grade protection used by many of the largest websites.
This creates a perpetual cat-and-mouse dynamic. Scraping tools evolve to mimic human behavior more convincingly. Detection systems evolve to identify new evasion techniques. Scraping tools evolve again. This arms race is a significant reason why people-data quality fluctuates — when a major platform upgrades its bot detection, the data providers that relied on scraping that platform experience a temporary drop in data freshness until they adapt their collection methods.
PhantomBuster occupies an interesting middle ground between the technical OSINT tools and the polished commercial platforms. It is a cloud-based automation platform that offers pre-built “Phantoms” — automated workflows designed for specific platforms and tasks. Its LinkedIn Profile Scraper, Sales Navigator Search Export, and similar tools allow non-technical users to automate data collection from social platforms without writing code or managing proxy infrastructure - PhantomBuster.
Starting at sixty-nine dollars per month, PhantomBuster is popular among growth hackers, outbound sales teams, and recruiters who need to extract data from social platforms at moderate scale. It is not strictly an OSINT tool — it is more accurately described as a social media automation platform — but it is widely used for the same people-data collection purposes and serves as an accessible entry point for teams that want automation capabilities without the technical overhead of managing Sherlock, SpiderFoot, or custom scraping infrastructure.
The tool handles proxy rotation, rate limiting, and platform-specific quirks internally, which dramatically lowers the barrier to entry. However, users should be aware that automating data collection from platforms like LinkedIn involves terms-of-service risks that PhantomBuster’s convenience can make easy to overlook.
Every tool, technique, and platform discussed in this guide operates within a legal framework that is evolving rapidly and becoming more restrictive with each passing year. The capabilities for finding and enriching people data have never been greater, but neither have the potential consequences of misusing those capabilities. A company that builds its sales or recruiting operation on non-compliant data practices is not just taking a legal risk — it is building on a foundation that could crumble entirely when regulations tighten or enforcement actions arrive.
This is not theoretical. Real companies have faced real fines, real lawsuits, and real reputational damage from careless handling of personal data. Understanding the legal landscape is not just a compliance checkbox — it is a strategic imperative that should shape which tools you choose, how you use them, and what safeguards you put in place.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, which has been in full enforcement since 2018, fundamentally changed the rules for how personal data can be collected, stored, and used. Its impact extends far beyond Europe because any company that processes data about EU residents must comply, regardless of where that company is based. For people-search tools and data providers, GDPR created an entirely new compliance paradigm.
At its core, GDPR requires a legal basis for processing personal data. For people-search companies, the most commonly cited basis is “legitimate interest” — the argument that a business has a reasonable need to process someone’s data for purposes like sales outreach or fraud prevention, balanced against the individual’s privacy rights. This is not a blank check. Companies must document their legitimate interest assessment, demonstrate that they have considered less invasive alternatives, and prove that the individual’s rights do not override the business interest.
GDPR grants individuals powerful rights over their data. The right of access means any person can request a complete copy of all data a company holds about them, and the company must respond within one month. The right to erasure — colloquially known as the “right to be forgotten” — means individuals can demand that their data be deleted entirely. The principle of data minimization requires companies to collect only the data they genuinely need, not vacuum up everything available just because they can.
For people-search platforms, these requirements have tangible operational consequences. Every platform operating in or serving European markets must maintain opt-out mechanisms, respond to data subject access requests, and implement processes to actually delete data when requested. Cognism built much of its competitive differentiation around GDPR compliance, maintaining comprehensive do-not-contact lists and proactive opt-out handling that many competitors neglect. The enforcement teeth are real: fines can reach four percent of global annual turnover or twenty million euros, whichever is higher. Meta was fined 1.2 billion euros in 2023 for data transfer violations, demonstrating that regulators are willing to impose penalties at a scale that commands attention.
The United States lacks a single federal privacy law comparable to GDPR, but California has stepped into the gap with legislation that affects the entire people-data industry. The California Consumer Privacy Act, enacted in 2018 and significantly strengthened by the California Privacy Rights Act in 2023, gives California residents the right to know what personal data companies collect about them, the right to delete that data, and the right to opt out of the sale of their personal information.
For people-search companies and data brokers, the CCPA/CPRA created a specific obligation: data brokers must register with the California Attorney General, and they must honor opt-out requests from California residents. This is why every major people-search platform — from Spokeo to BeenVerified to ZoomInfo — now offers some form of opt-out process, however convoluted. California’s DELETE Act, signed into law in 2023 as SB 362, went even further by creating a single mechanism through which consumers can submit one opt-out request that applies to all registered data brokers simultaneously, rather than having to contact each one individually.
Beyond California, the American privacy landscape has become increasingly complex. Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act, Colorado’s Privacy Act, Connecticut’s Data Privacy Act, Utah’s Consumer Privacy Act, and laws in Texas, Oregon, Montana, and others have created a patchwork of state-level privacy requirements. By early 2026, more than fifteen states have enacted comprehensive privacy legislation, each with its own specific requirements, definitions, and enforcement mechanisms. For companies operating people-search tools nationwide, compliance means tracking and adhering to the strictest requirements across all applicable states — a logistically challenging undertaking that has driven many organizations to simply apply CCPA-level protections universally rather than trying to segment by state.
The absence of a federal privacy law remains a significant gap. Multiple proposals have been discussed in Congress over the years, including the American Data Privacy Protection Act, but partisan disagreements over preemption of state laws and private right of action have prevented any from becoming law. This means the patchwork continues to grow, and companies in the people-data space must navigate an increasingly complex regulatory environment.
No legal story is more directly relevant to the people-search industry than the ongoing battle between LinkedIn and companies that scrape its data. The landmark case of hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn, which wound through the courts for years, initially appeared to establish that scraping publicly accessible data does not violate federal law. The Ninth Circuit ruled in hiQ’s favor, finding that LinkedIn could not use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to block scraping of public profiles.
However, the legal picture has remained murky. After the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent it back for reconsideration in light of the Van Buren decision, the case eventually settled on terms that were not fully disclosed. The practical result is that there is no definitive, binding legal precedent that clearly establishes whether scraping LinkedIn profiles is legal or illegal. LinkedIn’s terms of service explicitly prohibit automated data collection, and the company actively detects and blocks scrapers through technical measures, rate limiting, and account suspensions.
Despite this legal uncertainty, an entire industry operates in the gray zone. Dozens of companies — from established players like ZoomInfo and Apollo to specialized tools like PhantomBuster and countless smaller operations — build their people databases partly on data collected from LinkedIn. They employ various legal theories to justify this practice, from the public-accessibility argument to fair use claims, while LinkedIn continues to pursue legal action against the most aggressive scrapers. For users of people-search tools, the key takeaway is that the data you are accessing through commercial platforms may have been collected through methods that exist in a legal gray area, and this reality should factor into your risk assessment.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, originally enacted in 1986 to combat computer hacking, has become a central battleground in disputes over data scraping. The key question is whether accessing publicly available data through automated means — when the website’s terms of service prohibit such access — constitutes “unauthorized access” under the CFAA.
The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Van Buren v. United States significantly narrowed the scope of the CFAA, ruling that the law covers only those who access information they are not entitled to access at all, not those who access information they are entitled to see but use in an unauthorized way. This distinction matters enormously for data scraping: if a profile is publicly visible to anyone with a web browser, then accessing it with an automated script is not accessing information you are unauthorized to see — you are merely accessing it in a way the website would prefer you did not.
This interpretation has generally favored data scrapers, but it is not an absolute shield. Courts have distinguished between truly public data, which anyone can view without logging in, and data that requires authentication, which exists behind what courts have called “gates.” Scraping data that requires a login — such as LinkedIn profiles that are only fully visible to logged-in users — exists in a more legally precarious zone than scraping genuinely public web pages. Companies that access data behind authentication barriers using fake accounts or compromised credentials face substantially greater legal risk.
A parallel regulatory trend is increasing transparency requirements for companies that trade in personal data. Vermont became the first state to require data broker registration in 2018, creating a public registry of companies whose primary business involves buying or selling personal data. California followed with its own registration requirement in 2020, and the DELETE Act has added the single opt-out mechanism that promises to make it significantly easier for individuals to remove themselves from data broker databases.
The Federal Trade Commission has also stepped up enforcement against data practices it considers unfair or deceptive. In 2023 and 2024, the FTC took action against multiple location data brokers, including X-Mode Social (now Outlogic) and InMarket, for selling sensitive location data that could reveal visits to medical facilities, religious institutions, and other sensitive locations. While these cases focused on location data rather than people-search data specifically, they signal a broader enforcement direction: regulators are increasingly willing to challenge data practices that they view as harmful to consumers, even when the data was technically collected from public or opt-in sources.
The trajectory is clear. Each year brings more registration requirements, more enforcement actions, and more consumer rights regarding personal data. People-search tools and their users who invest in compliance now are building sustainable operations; those who ignore compliance trends are accumulating risk that will eventually materialize.
Understanding the legal landscape in the abstract is important, but translating it into daily practice is what actually protects organizations. Several principles apply across jurisdictions and use cases.
First, always provide opt-out mechanisms. Whether you are legally required to or not, allowing people to remove themselves from your outreach lists is both ethically right and practically wise. Nothing damages a brand faster than someone publicly complaining that a company will not stop contacting them. Most commercial people-search platforms provide opt-out handling, but the responsibility ultimately falls on you as the user of the data.
Second, document your legitimate business interest for every data collection and outreach activity. If a regulator or an individual asks why you have their data and why you contacted them, you need a clear, defensible answer. “We found your profile on a data platform” is not sufficient. “We identified you as a potential buyer of our cybersecurity software based on your role as CISO at a mid-market financial services company, which is a legitimate business interest under GDPR Article 6(1)(f)” is much more defensible.
Third, exercise particular caution with phone data. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the United States imposes strict rules on automated calls and text messages, with statutory damages of five hundred to fifteen hundred dollars per violation. These damages add up quickly in the context of outbound sales campaigns, and TCPA class action lawsuits have resulted in settlements reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. When people-search platforms provide phone numbers, using them for automated outreach without proper consent creates significant legal exposure.
Fourth, never scrape data from behind login walls without clear legal authorization. The legal protections that may apply to scraping truly public data largely evaporate when authentication barriers are involved. If you need to access data that requires logging in, use official APIs or licensed data sources.
Fifth, conduct due diligence on your data vendors. When you purchase data from a people-search platform, you inherit risk from their collection practices. Ask vendors about their data sources, their compliance certifications, and their opt-out handling. Reputable vendors will be transparent about these topics. Those who are evasive may be cutting compliance corners that could become your problem.
The enterprise market has driven widespread adoption of security certifications among people-data providers. SOC 2 certification, which evaluates a company’s controls across five trust service criteria — security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy — has become a baseline expectation for any data vendor selling to mid-market or enterprise buyers. Companies including Apollo, ZoomInfo, Cognism, and many others have obtained SOC 2 certification, and buyers should request current SOC 2 reports as part of vendor evaluation.
ISO 27001, the international standard for information security management systems, represents a more comprehensive certification that covers the entire organization’s approach to information security. Fewer data providers hold ISO 27001 certification compared to SOC 2, but it is increasingly requested by enterprise buyers, particularly those in regulated industries like financial services and healthcare.
These certifications do not guarantee that a company’s data practices are beyond reproach. They certify that specific security controls and processes are in place, not that the underlying data was ethically collected. However, they do indicate a level of organizational maturity around data handling that provides meaningful assurance, and their absence from a data vendor’s profile should prompt additional scrutiny during the evaluation process.
If you have spent any time researching people-search tools, you have undoubtedly encountered the most frustrating phrase in B2B software: “Contact sales for pricing.” The people-data industry is particularly opaque about costs, with many of the largest platforms refusing to publish prices and instead requiring prospects to sit through discovery calls and sales demos before learning what they will actually pay. This section cuts through that opacity with real pricing data gathered from public sources, user reports, and market research current through early 2026.
Understanding what things cost matters not just for budgeting but for strategic decision-making. The pricing structures of these platforms reveal their business models, their target customers, and the trade-offs they have made. A platform that charges fifteen thousand dollars per year minimum is signaling that it does not want small teams as customers and has optimized its product for enterprise workflows. A platform with a generous free tier is betting on bottom-up adoption and viral growth within organizations. These signals, embedded in pricing, tell you as much about a platform’s suitability for your needs as any feature comparison.
The enterprise tier of people-search platforms is where the largest budgets meet the most comprehensive data, and it is also where the most aggressive sales tactics and opaque pricing structures live. Understanding what you are getting into before engaging with enterprise sales teams can save you months of negotiation and tens of thousands of dollars.
ZoomInfo dominates the enterprise conversation, and its pricing has become legendary for both its magnitude and its complexity. The Professional plan starts at approximately fourteen thousand, nine hundred and ninety-five dollars per year for a small team of one to three users, which includes five thousand bulk export credits. The Advanced plan jumps to twenty-four thousand, nine hundred and ninety-five dollars per year, adding ten thousand credits and one thousand credits per user per month. The Elite plan starts above thirty-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-five dollars per year and includes the most advanced features like buying intent signals and advanced analytics - UpLead on ZoomInfo Pricing.
What makes ZoomInfo pricing particularly important to understand is its contract structure. Contracts are annual with automatic renewal, and renewals typically include price increases of ten to twenty percent — built into the contract language that many buyers do not scrutinize carefully during initial purchase. This means a team that signs a twenty-five thousand dollar first-year contract may find themselves paying thirty thousand in year two and thirty-six thousand in year three, without any increase in usage or features. Negotiating renewal caps into the initial contract is essential but rarely done by first-time buyers - Cognism on ZoomInfo Pricing.
6sense operates at an even higher price point, with typical contracts ranging from sixty thousand to over one hundred and fifty thousand dollars annually. Its pricing reflects its positioning as a comprehensive revenue intelligence platform rather than a simple data provider. The platform combines intent data, predictive analytics, account identification, and orchestration capabilities that justify the premium for organizations large enough to fully utilize them. However, the implementation complexity and time-to-value at these price points mean that 6sense is genuinely appropriate only for organizations with dedicated revenue operations teams and the patience for a multi-month deployment.
Cognism, which has built its reputation on GDPR-compliant European data, starts at approximately fifteen thousand dollars per year. Its pricing is somewhat more transparent than ZoomInfo’s, and its European data quality commands a premium that organizations targeting EMEA markets generally find justified. The phone-verified mobile number data that Cognism provides through its Diamond Data program is particularly valued by sales teams that prioritize phone-based outreach.
UserGems, focused specifically on job-change tracking and customer intelligence, starts at around thirty thousand dollars per year for its standard offering and can reach one hundred and twenty thousand dollars annually for its Elite tier. The implementation also carries a one-time fee of three to five thousand dollars. UserGems’ pricing reflects its specialized value proposition: it tracks when your customers’ champions change jobs and surfaces those as warm leads at their new companies. For organizations with large customer bases and high-value contracts, the ROI can be extraordinary — a single closed deal influenced by a UserGems alert can pay for years of subscription. But for smaller companies without enough customer relationships to generate meaningful job-change volume, the price point is difficult to justify - UserGems Pricing.
LinkedIn Recruiter Corporate, the full-featured enterprise recruiting platform, costs approximately ten thousand dollars per year per seat. For large recruiting teams, this adds up quickly, but the direct access to LinkedIn’s first-party data — the most comprehensive professional network in the world — makes it the gold standard for recruiting use cases. The advantage over third-party tools is data freshness and accuracy: LinkedIn profiles are updated by the users themselves, which means the information is as current as the users choose to make it.
The mid-market tier is where the most intense competition in the people-search industry takes place, and it is where buyers have the most leverage and the most options. Platforms in this range are fighting for the same customers, which drives both innovation and competitive pricing.
Apollo.io has become the dominant player in this segment through a combination of aggressive pricing and a genuinely comprehensive feature set. Its Pro plan at ninety-nine dollars per user per month, billed annually, provides access to a database of over two hundred and seventy-five million contacts along with email sequencing, call recording, and CRM integration. The Business plan at one hundred and forty-nine dollars per user per month adds more advanced features including AI-powered scoring, advanced reports, and higher usage limits. What makes Apollo’s pricing particularly compelling is the sheer volume of data access relative to cost — the per-contact cost at Apollo’s price points is a fraction of what ZoomInfo charges.
Clay has carved out a distinctive position with its waterfall enrichment approach, and its pricing reflects the platform’s flexible, workflow-oriented design. The Starter plan at one hundred and forty-nine dollars per month provides the basic enrichment and workflow capabilities. The Explorer plan at three hundred and forty-nine dollars per month adds more credits and data sources. The Pro plan at eight hundred dollars per month unlocks the full platform with advanced AI features and higher volumes. Clay’s pricing can be deceptive because the credit system means that complex enrichment workflows with multiple data sources consume credits faster than simple lookups — a ten-step waterfall enrichment that checks five different providers for each contact uses significantly more credits than a single-source lookup - Clay.
Hunter.io’s Growth plan at one hundred and forty-nine dollars per month provides five thousand searches — a straightforward, predictable pricing model that email-focused teams appreciate. Seamless.AI’s Pro plan runs approximately one hundred and forty-seven dollars per month, though Seamless has been known to offer significant discounts during negotiations. RocketReach spans a range from fifty-three to one hundred and seventy-nine dollars per month depending on the plan, offering a good balance of data coverage and affordability for teams that need contact information without the full sales engagement platform.
LinkedIn Sales Navigator Advanced, at approximately one hundred and forty-nine dollars per month, deserves special mention because it provides something no third-party tool can match: native search and filtering within LinkedIn’s own platform, with InMail credits for direct outreach. For sales professionals who primarily work through LinkedIn, Sales Navigator is often the single most valuable tool in their stack, and its pricing, while not inexpensive, reflects genuine first-party data access that third parties can only approximate.
For smaller teams, individual professionals, and startups, the sub-one-hundred-dollar tier offers surprisingly capable options. The data quality and volume may not match enterprise platforms, but for early-stage prospecting and lean operations, these tools deliver meaningful value.
Apollo.io’s Basic plan at forty-nine dollars per user per month, billed annually, represents perhaps the best value in the entire market. It provides access to the same database as the higher tiers, with fewer features and lower usage limits. For a startup’s first sales hire or a freelance recruiter, this is enough to run productive outreach campaigns.
Lusha Pro at forty-nine dollars per user per month provides clean, accurate contact data with a simple interface that requires virtually no learning curve. Snov.io starts at just thirty dollars per month, making it one of the most affordable options for email finding and verification. Hunter.io’s Starter plan at forty-nine dollars per month provides a thousand searches — sufficient for moderate-volume prospecting. Prospeo at thirty-nine dollars per month and Findymail at forty-nine dollars per month offer specialized email-finding capabilities at accessible price points. Skrapp at forty-nine dollars per month focuses on LinkedIn email extraction with straightforward per-credit pricing.
UpLead Essentials at ninety-nine dollars per month, or seventy-four dollars per month with annual billing, positions itself as a more affordable alternative to ZoomInfo with particular emphasis on data accuracy — the platform claims a ninety-five percent accuracy guarantee and provides real-time email verification. For teams that have outgrown free tools but are not ready for mid-market pricing, UpLead offers a credible intermediate option.
Swordfish AI at ninety-nine dollars per month stands out by offering unlimited searches at a flat rate — a pricing model that removes the anxiety of credit consumption that plagues usage-based platforms. For high-volume users who would burn through credits quickly on other platforms, Swordfish’s unlimited model can be dramatically more cost-effective - Swordfish AI Pricing.
PhantomBuster, starting at sixty-nine dollars per month, occupies its own niche as an automation platform rather than a data provider per se. Its value depends heavily on which Phantoms you use and how frequently. For teams that need to extract data from social platforms at moderate scale, it can be more cost-effective than purchasing pre-collected data, though it requires more hands-on management.
One of the smartest strategies when evaluating people-search tools is to use free tiers extensively before committing any budget. Many platforms offer enough free access to genuinely evaluate data quality, user experience, and fit for your specific use case.
Apollo.io offers the most generous free tier in the market, providing limited credits per month that are sufficient to run small-scale prospecting campaigns and evaluate the platform’s data quality against your target market. Lusha provides fifty credits per month free — enough to verify a meaningful sample of contacts. Hunter.io’s free plan includes twenty-five searches per month, which is limited but sufficient for initial evaluation. Snov.io offers a fifty-credit free trial. Skrapp provides fifty searches per month free. RocketReach and LeadIQ both offer limited free searches. Warmly provides five hundred visitor identifications per month at no cost, which is a genuinely useful amount for small-traffic websites - Warmly AI.
LinkedIn Sales Navigator offers a one-month free trial, which is particularly valuable because it is one of the more expensive tools in the mid-market tier and the trial provides full access to its capabilities. Using this trial strategically — dedicating focused time during the trial month to thoroughly evaluate the platform — can save you from committing to a tool that may not fit your workflow.
The key to using free tiers effectively is testing against your specific needs, not general capabilities. Every platform looks good when you search for “VP of Marketing at Salesforce” — the real test is whether the tool can find accurate data for the specific types of contacts in your target market. If you sell to small manufacturing companies in the Midwest, test with those profiles. If you recruit machine learning engineers in Southeast Asia, search for those candidates. The quality of results for your specific use case matters infinitely more than the platform’s aggregate accuracy statistics.
For technical teams building custom enrichment pipelines or integrating people data into their own systems, per-record API pricing offers a fundamentally different economic model. Instead of paying a flat monthly fee for a set number of users and credits, you pay for exactly what you consume.
People Data Labs exemplifies this model, charging per enriched record with prices that typically range from one cent to ten cents per record depending on volume commitments and the type of data requested. At scale, this can be dramatically more cost-effective than platform-based pricing. A company that needs to enrich one million records might pay ten thousand to one hundred thousand dollars through People Data Labs’ API, compared to potentially much more through a platform like ZoomInfo with comparable coverage.
Crustdata offers API-based pricing for its company and people intelligence data, with costs that scale based on the volume and complexity of queries. Clearbit, now integrated into HubSpot as Breeze Intelligence, has shifted its pricing to be bundled with HubSpot’s broader platform — a model that works well for HubSpot customers but is less accessible for those using other CRM systems. FullContact provides record-based pricing with volume discounts, catering to identity resolution use cases where companies need to match and merge people records across systems.
The API pricing model rewards technical sophistication. Teams that can build their own enrichment workflows, handle rate limiting, manage data storage, and implement caching to avoid redundant lookups will get dramatically better economics than those who rely on pre-built platform interfaces. This is one area where having engineering resources available directly translates into cost savings on people data.
The listed price of any people-search platform is only part of the total cost. Several hidden costs consistently catch buyers off guard, and understanding them before you negotiate can save you significant money and frustration.
Annual contract lock-in is the most significant hidden cost in the enterprise tier. ZoomInfo, Cognism, and 6sense all favor annual contracts, and breaking these contracts early typically means paying the full remaining contract value. This means that if you sign a twenty-five thousand dollar annual contract and realize after three months that the platform is not working for your team, you still owe the full amount. Some vendors will negotiate quarterly payment terms, but the total commitment usually remains annual.
Per-seat pricing multiplies faster than most buyers anticipate. A platform that costs one hundred dollars per user per month seems reasonable for a three-person team at three thousand six hundred dollars per year. But as the team grows to ten people, the annual cost jumps to twelve thousand dollars — and enterprise platforms often require minimum seat commitments that prevent you from scaling down if team size fluctuates.
Credit expiration is a particularly frustrating hidden cost. On most platforms, unused credits do not roll over from one month to the next. If your plan includes one thousand credits per month and you only use six hundred in a quiet month, those four hundred unused credits simply vanish. Over a year, this can mean that you effectively paid for thousands of credits you never used. Some platforms offer annual credit pools rather than monthly allocations, which partially addresses this problem, but the underlying dynamic of use-it-or-lose-it credit systems means most buyers end up paying more per actual enrichment than the headline rate suggests.
Auto-renewal with built-in price increases is standard practice in the enterprise tier but catches many organizations by surprise. The time to negotiate renewal terms is during the initial contract, not thirty days before the renewal date when your leverage has evaporated. Specifically ask for a renewal cap — many vendors will agree to limit increases to five percent or less if pressed, compared to the ten to twenty percent default increases that the standard contract language permits.
Implementation and onboarding fees add upfront costs that do not appear in the monthly or annual subscription price. UserGems charges three to five thousand dollars for implementation. Other platforms have similar fees or offer “premium onboarding” packages that are nominally optional but practically necessary for complex deployments. Training costs — either from the vendor or invested in internal learning — also add up, particularly for sophisticated platforms like Clay or 6sense that have significant learning curves.
CRM integration fees represent another potential hidden cost. While many platforms include basic CRM integration in their standard pricing, advanced integration features — bidirectional sync, custom field mapping, workflow automation — sometimes require higher-tier plans. If CRM integration is critical to your use case, confirm exactly which integration capabilities are included in the specific plan you are evaluating.
The most effective cost optimization strategy begins before you spend a single dollar: test extensively with free tiers to determine which platforms actually deliver quality data for your specific target market. Running parallel tests across multiple free tiers gives you empirical evidence of relative data quality, which is far more valuable than any vendor’s self-reported accuracy statistics. Two weeks of disciplined testing across three or four free tiers can prevent a year-long commitment to a platform that delivers mediocre results for your particular niche.
Waterfall enrichment — using multiple affordable tools in sequence rather than relying on a single expensive platform — has become one of the most popular cost optimization strategies in 2026, driven largely by platforms like Clay that make it easy to implement. The logic is straightforward: instead of paying ZoomInfo twenty-five thousand dollars for access to its single database, you might spend five thousand dollars total across Apollo, Hunter, Dropcontact, and People Data Labs, checking each source in sequence until you find a valid result. Because no single database has complete coverage, the waterfall approach often achieves comparable or better enrichment rates at a fraction of the cost.
Timing your purchases strategically can yield significant discounts. Most B2B software companies operate on quarterly sales quotas, and sales representatives become increasingly willing to offer discounts as the quarter end approaches. January, April, July, and October — the beginnings of fiscal quarters for many companies — tend to be the most expensive times to buy, while March, June, September, and December often yield the best deals. End-of-year budget season can also produce exceptional discounts as vendors try to lock in revenue before the fiscal year closes.
When evaluating annual versus monthly billing, the math usually favors annual commitment — most platforms offer twenty to thirty percent savings for annual billing compared to monthly. But this calculation should be weighed against the risk of committing to a platform before you have enough experience to be confident it meets your needs. A reasonable approach is to start with monthly billing for the first two to three months, then switch to annual once you have confirmed the platform’s value. The few months of higher monthly pricing is a small insurance premium against a year of regret.
Perhaps the most important cost metric is not the subscription cost but the cost per enriched lead that actually converts. A platform that costs twice as much but delivers data that is twice as accurate — resulting in higher response rates, more conversations, and more closed deals — is actually the cheaper option in terms of business outcomes. Conversely, the cheapest platform in raw subscription terms may be the most expensive when you factor in wasted time from sales representatives chasing bad phone numbers and bounced emails. Always calculate the total cost of data quality, including the downstream cost of bad data, not just the sticker price on the subscription.
Finally, factor in data decay when calculating true costs. People data degrades at a rate of roughly twenty-five to thirty percent per year as people change jobs, phone numbers, and email addresses. This means that a database you enriched twelve months ago has already lost a quarter of its value, and re-enriching those records effectively doubles your per-contact cost over a two-year period. Platforms that provide continuous enrichment or automatic updates on existing records may appear more expensive upfront but can be more economical over time than cheaper platforms that require you to repeatedly re-purchase data on the same contacts.
The previous fifteen chapters have covered the landscape, the tools, the data providers, and the regulatory guardrails. Now it is time to get practical. This chapter walks through exactly how teams are assembling and using people search technology in their day-to-day work. These are not theoretical configurations. They are workflows that thousands of sales, marketing, and recruiting teams are running right now, refined through trial and error over the past several years.
Understanding these workflows matters even if you never plan to build a complex technology stack yourself. Knowing how the pieces fit together helps you evaluate vendors, avoid unnecessary purchases, and recognize when a tool is solving a real problem versus creating new ones.
The Sales Development Representative is the person most likely to live inside people search tools for eight hours a day. Their job is to generate qualified meetings for account executives, which means they need a constant flow of accurate prospect data, a way to personalize outreach, and a system for managing follow-ups across hundreds of contacts simultaneously. Here is what a typical day looks like in 2026.
The morning starts with intent signals. Before building any new lists or writing any emails, the SDR checks which companies have been showing buying signals overnight. Tools like 6sense, Bombora, and Warmly track anonymous website visits, content consumption, and third-party research activity, then match that activity back to specific companies. If a VP of Marketing at a target account visited your pricing page at eleven o’clock last night, that person moves to the top of today’s outreach list. This is a fundamental shift from how prospecting worked even five years ago. Instead of cold-calling down a static list, the SDR starts each day with a warm list of companies already showing interest.
Next comes list building. The SDR opens LinkedIn Sales Navigator and applies filters matching their Ideal Customer Profile: job titles like “Head of Revenue Operations” or “VP of Sales,” companies between fifty and five hundred employees, specific industries, geographic regions, and sometimes technology usage filters. Sales Navigator remains the single most important list-building tool because LinkedIn has the most comprehensive and up-to-date professional profile data available anywhere. The SDR might build a list of forty to sixty new prospects that match the ICP and show recent activity signals.
The enrichment phase is where the modern stack really differentiates itself from older approaches. Raw LinkedIn profiles do not include direct email addresses or mobile phone numbers. The SDR exports the Sales Navigator list, typically using a browser extension tool like PhantomBuster or Dripify that automates the extraction process, and then runs those contacts through an enrichment waterfall. This waterfall approach, popularized by Clay, sends each contact through multiple data providers in sequence. First it tries Apollo for the email address. If Apollo does not have it, it tries Lusha. If Lusha misses, it tries Hunter.io. For phone numbers, it might route through Cognism first, then Swordfish as a backup. The waterfall dramatically increases the overall hit rate compared to relying on any single provider - https://www.clay.com/.
Verification comes before any outreach begins. The SDR runs every collected email through a verification service like ZeroBounce or NeverBounce. This step catches invalid addresses, full mailboxes, and disposable email domains. Skipping verification is one of the most expensive mistakes a team can make, because sending to bad addresses damages your domain’s sender reputation, which in turn causes future emails to land in spam even when the addresses are valid.
With verified, enriched contact data in hand, the SDR personalizes their outreach. In 2026, this almost always involves some form of AI assistance. The SDR might use Claude or GPT-4 to draft email variants that reference specific details from the prospect’s profile: a recent job change, their company’s latest funding round, a podcast appearance, or a technology they use. The key is that the AI works from real data collected during the enrichment phase, not from generic templates.
Finally, the SDR loads the personalized messages into a sequencing tool. Outreach.io and Salesloft remain the enterprise standards, while Apollo.io and Instantly serve startups and mid-market teams. These sequencing tools automate the multi-touch cadence: an email on day one, a LinkedIn connection request on day three, a follow-up email on day five, a phone call on day eight, and so on. The SDR monitors replies, handles objections, and books meetings for the account executives.
This entire workflow, from intent signal to booked meeting, might take a skilled SDR thirty to forty-five minutes per batch of prospects. A well-equipped SDR can work through two hundred to three hundred new contacts per week using this approach.
For early-stage companies with limited budgets, a consensus stack has emerged over the past two years that delivers surprising capability for very little money. The combination of Apollo.io, Clay, and Instantly has become something of a standard recipe for startups in the ten-to-fifty employee range, and for good reason.
Apollo serves as the foundational database. Its free tier provides a limited number of credits per month for looking up contact information, and even its basic paid plans are affordable relative to enterprise alternatives. Apollo gives the team a searchable database of over 275 million contacts, basic email sequencing capabilities, and decent enrichment for common roles at mid-size companies. Where Apollo falls short, particularly for niche industries, senior executives, or international contacts, Clay fills the gap with its waterfall enrichment across dozens of providers. Instantly handles the email sending at scale, managing multiple sending mailboxes to distribute volume and protect deliverability.
The total cost for this stack typically runs between two hundred and five hundred dollars per month, a fraction of what enterprise tools charge. This makes it accessible to bootstrapped startups, solo founders, and small growth teams operating without six-figure software budgets. The trade-off is that setup requires more manual configuration, there is less built-in support and training, and the integrations between tools are not as seamless as a single integrated platform would provide.
What makes this stack work is the division of responsibilities. Apollo provides breadth of data and basic workflow. Clay provides depth of enrichment and flexibility. Instantly provides sending infrastructure optimized for cold outreach. Each tool does one thing well, and the combination covers the full prospecting workflow without significant overlap or wasted spending.
Companies with more than a thousand employees operate in a fundamentally different environment. They need SOC 2 compliance certifications, single sign-on integration, role-based access controls, centralized billing, dedicated account management, and seamless CRM integration that can handle millions of records. These requirements narrow the field considerably.
The typical enterprise configuration centers on ZoomInfo or Cognism as the primary data platform, providing the foundational contact and company database. Layered on top is an intent data provider like 6sense, which identifies which accounts are actively researching solutions in the company’s category. Salesforce serves as the CRM and system of record, the place where all prospect and customer data ultimately lives. Outreach or Salesloft handles the sales engagement workflow, managing sequences, tracking opens and replies, and providing analytics on what messaging works. Gong rounds out the stack with conversation intelligence, recording and analyzing sales calls to identify patterns and coach representatives.
The annual cost for this configuration ranges from one hundred thousand to well over five hundred thousand dollars depending on the number of seats, data volume, and contract terms. That sounds like an enormous investment, and it is, but for enterprise sales teams generating tens or hundreds of millions in revenue, the return on investment can be substantial if the tools are properly implemented and adopted.
The enterprise stack is not just more expensive; it operates differently. Data governance teams review every integration for compliance. Legal departments negotiate data processing agreements with each vendor. IT teams manage the technical integrations and ensure data flows correctly between systems. The procurement process for a new tool can take three to six months. This complexity is the price of operating at scale within regulated industries - https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/sales-intelligence-market-109103.
Account-Based Marketing, commonly called ABM, flips the traditional sales funnel upside down. Instead of casting a wide net and hoping to catch interested prospects, ABM starts by identifying a specific list of target companies and then pursues everyone relevant within those companies. People search technology is essential to every stage of this workflow.
The process begins with account selection. The marketing team uses firmographic data, such as industry, employee count, revenue, technology usage, and geographic presence, combined with intent signals to identify fifty to five hundred target accounts that closely match the ideal customer profile. This is a strategic decision, not a bulk data pull. The team is choosing which companies to invest significant time and resources in pursuing.
Once the target accounts are selected, the next step is mapping the buying committee within each account. Modern B2B purchasing decisions involve an average of six to ten stakeholders, and reaching only one of them is rarely sufficient. The team needs to identify the economic buyer who controls the budget, the champion who will advocate internally for the solution, the technical evaluator who will assess whether it integrates with existing systems, and the legal or procurement stakeholder who will negotiate the contract. LinkedIn Sales Navigator is the starting point for this mapping, supplemented by ZoomInfo or Apollo org charts that show reporting structures. Direct phone numbers come from Cognism or Swordfish for the stakeholders who need to be reached by phone.
Personalization at the account level is what distinguishes ABM from standard outbound sales. The messaging for the CFO focuses on cost savings and ROI. The messaging for the VP of Engineering focuses on technical architecture and integration. The messaging for the Head of Procurement focuses on contract flexibility and compliance. Each member of the buying committee receives outreach tailored to their specific concerns and priorities, all coordinated so the touches happen within the same time window, creating the impression that the selling company is everywhere at once.
The orchestration happens across multiple channels simultaneously. The economic buyer might receive a personalized email and see targeted display ads on LinkedIn. The champion might get a LinkedIn connection request and an invitation to an exclusive event. The technical evaluator might receive a link to a technical white paper and an offer for a proof-of-concept. All of this is tracked at the account level rather than the individual level, so the team can see that “Acme Corp” has had twelve touches across four stakeholders this month, not just that “Jane Smith” opened one email.
One of the most valuable applications of people search technology is not outbound prospecting at all. It is keeping your existing CRM data clean, complete, and current. Every company that has been in business for more than a year accumulates thousands or tens of thousands of contact records, and a significant percentage of those records are incomplete, outdated, or both.
The automated approach uses enrichment triggers. When a new lead enters the CRM through a form submission, a webinar registration, or an inbound inquiry, an automated workflow fires that enriches the record with additional data points. The lead might have provided only their name and email address on a form, but the enrichment trigger fills in their job title, company name, company size, industry, LinkedIn profile URL, phone number, and technology stack. Clay and HubSpot’s native Breeze feature both support this kind of triggered enrichment.
Beyond new records, periodic re-enrichment is essential. People change jobs, get promoted, move to new companies, and update their contact information constantly. Running a re-enrichment cycle every ninety days catches these changes before they cause problems. A sales representative calling a prospect who left the company six months ago does not just waste time; it signals to the prospect’s former colleagues that your data and attention to detail are lacking.
Gap analysis is the third component. Running a report across your CRM to identify records that are missing critical fields, such as email address, phone number, job title, or company revenue, reveals where enrichment can have the most immediate impact. Batch-enriching these incomplete records often provides an instant boost to the productivity of sales and marketing teams who have been working around data gaps for months or years.
Recruiters use many of the same people search tools as sales teams, but the workflow differs in important ways. The recruiter’s goal is not to sell a product but to identify, attract, and hire specific individuals, which means the personalization requirements are higher and the relationship dynamics are different.
The process starts with the hiring manager defining the role requirements and the sourcing strategy. For a senior software engineer, the recruiter might focus on LinkedIn Recruiter for broad professional data, GitHub for open-source contributions and coding activity, and Stack Overflow for community reputation. For a marketing executive, LinkedIn Recruiter and personal websites or portfolios might be the primary sources.
Boolean search remains a core skill for recruiters, particularly on LinkedIn Recruiter and through Google X-ray searches. An X-ray search uses Google’s site-specific search to find profiles on LinkedIn, GitHub, or other platforms that match specific criteria, often surfacing results that the platform’s native search would not return. A search like site:linkedin.com/in "machine learning engineer" "San Francisco" "PyTorch" can surface highly specific candidates that a standard LinkedIn search might rank too low to find.
Once potential candidates are identified, the recruiter extracts contact data using browser extensions from Lusha, RocketReach, or similar tools. The outreach is personalized to reference specific aspects of the candidate’s experience, projects, or career trajectory. Recruiters typically use a combination of LinkedIn InMail and direct email sequences, since candidates who do not respond on one channel sometimes respond on the other.
Tracking happens in the Applicant Tracking System, with Greenhouse, Lever, and Ashby being among the most common in 2026. The ATS records every interaction, schedules interviews, and manages the pipeline from initial outreach through offer acceptance. One practice that distinguishes excellent recruiting teams is re-engagement of silver-medal candidates, people who made it to final rounds but were not selected. These candidates have already been vetted and expressed interest, making them high-value prospects for future openings.
People search tools are not only useful for finding prospects and candidates. They are also powerful instruments for competitive intelligence. The movement of people between companies reveals strategic priorities, organizational health, and market direction in ways that press releases and earnings calls never do.
Tracking competitor hiring patterns is perhaps the most straightforward application. If a competitor suddenly posts twenty machine learning engineering positions, they are almost certainly making a significant investment in AI capabilities. If they are hiring a team of enterprise sales representatives in Europe, they are expanding into that market. The job postings themselves are public, but people search tools help you identify who is actually being hired and from where, providing deeper insight into the competitor’s strategy.
Monitoring executive departures provides another lens. When a company’s Chief Product Officer, VP of Engineering, or Head of Sales leaves, it often signals internal disagreements about strategy, organizational dysfunction, or an impending pivot. Tools like LinkedIn Sales Navigator allow you to set alerts for job changes at specific companies, so you are notified when key executives move. UserGems specializes in tracking these job changes and can alert your sales team when a former customer’s champion moves to a new company, creating an immediate warm introduction opportunity.
Tracking where a competitor’s employees go after leaving reveals which companies are winning the talent war. If a competitor is consistently losing engineers to one specific company, that destination company is likely offering something compelling, whether it is better compensation, more interesting technology, or stronger leadership. This data, aggregated over time using tools like Crustdata’s monitoring capabilities, paints a detailed picture of talent flows across an industry - https://crustdata.com/.
Every vendor in the people data space has a pitch deck full of impressive numbers. Accuracy rates north of ninety percent. Databases with hundreds of millions of contacts. AI that writes perfect outreach on autopilot. The reality, as anyone who has used these tools extensively will tell you, is considerably more complicated. This chapter covers what actually goes wrong, because understanding the failure modes is essential to getting value from these tools rather than wasting money on them.
The single most important thing to understand about people search data is that accuracy claims are almost always overstated. When a platform says it has ninety-five percent email accuracy, that number typically refers to the emails that passed their own verification at the time they were checked, which might have been days, weeks, or months before you access them. Real-world testing by teams who actually send those emails consistently shows accuracy rates in the sixty to eighty percent range, depending on the segment and how recently the data was refreshed.
The fundamental problem is data decay. B2B contact data degrades at a rate of roughly two to three percent per month, which means that about thirty percent of a database becomes inaccurate over the course of a year. The primary driver of this decay is job changes. The average tenure in many industries continues to decline, and every job change potentially invalidates an email address, a phone number, a job title, a company association, and a reporting structure. When someone moves from Acme Corp to Beta Inc, their old email address bounces, their direct dial goes to someone else’s desk, and their title at the new company may be different.
Email format changes compound the problem. When companies rebrand, get acquired, or simply decide to change their email convention from firstname.lastname to first initial plus last name, every email address in the database for that company becomes wrong simultaneously. Phone numbers are even less reliable than emails. Mobile numbers get ported between carriers, landline extensions change when offices reorganize, and the entire concept of a direct business phone number is becoming less relevant as more work happens through digital channels.
This accuracy gap is not a flaw that any single platform can fix. It is a structural feature of the data landscape. The only effective mitigation is verification at the point of use and reliance on multiple data sources rather than any single provider.
There is a pattern that repeats itself across companies of every size. A team purchases access to a people data platform, pulls a massive list of contacts that vaguely match their target market, and then blasts outreach to everyone on the list. The response rates are abysmal, the bounce rates are high, and the team concludes that the data is bad. But in many of these cases, the data is not the primary problem. The targeting is.
If your Ideal Customer Profile is poorly defined, if you are going after companies that do not actually need your product, or if you are reaching out to the wrong job titles within the right companies, no amount of data accuracy will save you. The most perfectly verified email address in the world does not help if the person on the other end has no reason to care about your message.
This manifests in a common anti-pattern: the team keeps buying more data, more tools, and more enrichment credits, hoping that volume will compensate for poor targeting. In reality, the returns diminish rapidly. Sending ten thousand poorly targeted emails costs more in domain reputation damage and wasted time than sending five hundred well-targeted ones. Data enrichment amplifies your strategy; it cannot replace one.
The commercial structures of people data platforms create significant switching costs that are worth understanding before you sign a contract. Most enterprise platforms, ZoomInfo and Cognism in particular, sell annual contracts with substantial upfront commitments. Once you have signed, your team builds workflows around that platform’s interface, integrates it with your CRM, trains representatives on its features, and accumulates historical data within it.
When the renewal comes around and the price increases, as it almost always does, switching to a competitor means retraining your team, rebuilding your CRM integrations, migrating any saved lists or workflows, and potentially losing access to historical activity data. Some platforms impose data export limitations that make it difficult to take your enriched data with you when you leave. Credit systems that reset monthly create a use-it-or-lose-it dynamic that pushes teams to consume credits whether they need the data or not, simply to feel they are getting their money’s worth.
The waterfall enrichment approach partly mitigates lock-in by distributing your dependency across multiple smaller providers rather than concentrating it in a single platform. But even waterfall users become dependent on their orchestration layer, whether that is Clay, Cargo, or a custom-built integration.
LinkedIn occupies a unique and somewhat paradoxical position in the people data ecosystem. It is the single most important source of professional profile data in the world, the place where hundreds of millions of professionals maintain their work history, skills, and connections. Virtually every people search workflow starts with or passes through LinkedIn at some point.
At the same time, LinkedIn actively and aggressively fights against third-party tools that scrape, extract, or automate interactions on its platform. The company has pursued legal action against data scrapers, implemented technical measures to detect and block automation tools, and regularly bans accounts that violate its terms of service regarding automated activity. This creates a constant cat-and-mouse dynamic where third-party tools find workarounds, LinkedIn closes the loopholes, and the tools adapt again.
For individual users, the practical impact includes connection request limits of roughly one hundred per week, increasingly strict detection of automated messaging, declining InMail response rates that now fall below ten percent for most cold outreach, and the risk of account suspension for using unauthorized automation tools. Sales Navigator data can also be stale for profiles that have not been recently updated, since LinkedIn relies on users self-reporting their job changes.
The broader implication is that LinkedIn’s dominance as a data source is both the industry’s greatest asset and its greatest vulnerability. If LinkedIn further restricts data access, it impacts every tool in the ecosystem that depends on LinkedIn as an upstream source. Some observers believe LinkedIn’s data advantage may slowly erode as professionals maintain their presence across more platforms, but for now, there is no real alternative for comprehensive professional profile data - https://www.g2.com/categories/sales-intelligence.
The email landscape changed dramatically in February 2024 when Google and Yahoo implemented new bulk sender requirements, and those requirements have only grown stricter through 2025 and into 2026. These rules require proper email authentication through DMARC, DKIM, and SPF protocols, mandate one-click unsubscribe functionality in all commercial emails, and enforce a spam complaint rate below 0.3 percent. Senders who violate these thresholds find their emails silently routed to spam folders or blocked entirely.
For teams that rely on cold email as a core outreach channel, these changes have been transformative. The margin for error has shrunk dramatically. Sending to an unverified list where five or ten percent of addresses bounce was merely inefficient in 2022. In 2026, it can damage your sending domain’s reputation so severely that even your legitimate one-to-one emails start landing in spam. This makes data quality more important than it has ever been. The cost of a bad email address is no longer just a wasted message; it is a measurable degradation of your ability to reach anyone via email.
The practical response has been a shift toward smaller, more targeted email campaigns with higher personalization, more aggressive pre-send verification, the use of multiple sending domains to distribute risk, and a greater emphasis on warming up new domains before using them for outreach. Tools like Instantly and Smartlead have built their businesses around helping teams manage this complexity, but the underlying reality is that cold email is harder and more expensive than it used to be.
The rapid adoption of AI writing tools for sales and recruiting outreach has created a new category of problems. In theory, AI enables a single representative to send hundreds of personalized messages per day, each one referencing specific details about the recipient’s background, company, or recent activity. In practice, the results are more mixed.
The most obvious failure mode is what might be called the uncanny valley of personalization. AI-generated emails are often close enough to genuine human writing to fool a casual reader, but experienced professionals can detect the patterns. The opening line that says “I noticed your company recently expanded into the European market” or “Congratulations on your recent Series B” has become so common that it signals “automated outreach” rather than “thoughtful human attention.” When every email in someone’s inbox starts with the same AI-generated patterns, none of them stand out.
A more insidious problem is AI agents that research incorrectly and send embarrassing outreach. An AI might misattribute a blog post, confuse two people with similar names, reference a company milestone that did not actually happen, or congratulate someone on a promotion they did not receive. These errors are not just ineffective; they actively damage the sender’s credibility and brand. The fundamental issue is that teams are using AI to scale their outreach volume without proportionally scaling their quality controls - https://theconversation.com/ai-agents-arrived-in-2025-heres-what-happened-and-the-challenges-ahead-in-2026-272325.
Recipients are also adapting. A senior executive in 2026 might receive thirty to fifty cold outreach emails per day, a significant portion of which are AI-generated. The sheer volume creates fatigue and raises the threshold for what earns a response. The irony is that AI tools designed to make outreach more personal have collectively made the outreach experience less personal by flooding every inbox with superficially customized messages.
The regulatory environment around people data is becoming more complex and more actively enforced. GDPR fines have been increasing both in frequency and in dollar amounts, with several penalties in the hundreds of millions of euros over the past two years. US state privacy laws continue to multiply, with more than a dozen states now having their own data protection regulations, each with slightly different requirements around consent, data subject rights, and enforcement mechanisms.
The most common compliance failures are not dramatic headline-grabbing violations. They are mundane operational oversights. A company collects email addresses through a data provider but fails to honor opt-out requests when recipients ask to be removed. A sales team purchases a European contact list without establishing a legitimate interest basis for processing that data under GDPR. An organization transfers personal data from the EU to the US without proper contractual safeguards. These are the kinds of violations that accumulate quietly until a regulatory inquiry or a data subject complaint brings them to light.
The patchwork nature of US state privacy laws creates particular challenges for teams that operate nationally. The requirements in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia, and other states with active privacy legislation differ in meaningful ways, and maintaining compliance across all of them requires careful attention to which rules apply to which contacts based on their location. Many small and mid-size companies simply do not have the legal resources to navigate this complexity, which creates latent risk in their people data operations.
People data tools have a well-documented tendency to cost more than teams initially expect. The pattern is familiar. A team starts with a basic tool at a reasonable price point, then realizes they need an additional integration for enrichment, another tool for verification, a separate platform for sequencing, and a data provider for phone numbers. Each addition seems modest on its own, but the cumulative monthly spend can quickly exceed what a single enterprise platform like ZoomInfo would have cost, while requiring significantly more operational overhead to manage.
Credit consumption is another source of budget surprises. Most platforms sell access in the form of monthly or annual credit allotments, and teams routinely underestimate how many credits they will consume. A single enrichment lookup might cost one credit, but running a waterfall that checks four providers consumes four credits. Enriching a list of ten thousand contacts through a four-provider waterfall burns forty thousand credits, which might represent several months’ allocation.
Annual contract renewals frequently include built-in price increases of ten to twenty percent, sometimes more. These increases are often presented as non-negotiable, and teams that did not budget for them face difficult conversations about whether to continue, downgrade, or switch providers entirely.
Perhaps the most fundamental cost challenge is measuring ROI. What is the actual revenue generated per dollar spent on people data? For most organizations, this is extraordinarily difficult to calculate because the data tools sit at the beginning of a long sales process. The gap between “we enriched this contact” and “we closed this deal” is filled with dozens of other variables, including the quality of the outreach, the skill of the sales representative, the competitiveness of the product, and timing. This measurement difficulty makes it hard to justify increasing or even maintaining data tool budgets when belts tighten.
The people data ecosystem is built primarily around mid-market and enterprise B2B companies headquartered in the United States and the United Kingdom. If your targets fall outside this core segment, your experience with these tools will be significantly worse.
Small and local businesses are poorly covered by B2B databases. A company with five employees and no website presence simply will not appear in ZoomInfo or Apollo. The data providers focus their collection efforts on organizations large enough to have structured management teams and online footprints, which means local service businesses, sole proprietors, and micro-enterprises are largely invisible.
Healthcare presents unique challenges due to strict regulations around how professional data can be used for commercial outreach. HIPAA in the United States and equivalent regulations in other countries impose limitations that go well beyond standard privacy law, and healthcare professionals are also some of the most heavily solicited people in any industry, making them resistant to yet another cold outreach attempt.
Government decision-makers are another weak spot. Many government employees do not maintain active LinkedIn profiles, their email addresses follow different conventions than corporate domains, and the procurement process for government contracts operates through entirely different channels than commercial sales.
International coverage outside the US, UK, and Western Europe drops off considerably. Data on professionals in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East is sparse in Western-built databases. China operates within a completely separate digital ecosystem centered on WeChat and platforms like Alibaba’s DingTalk, making Western people search tools essentially useless for Chinese market research. Companies that need to prospect globally must assemble multiple data providers for different regions, adding significant cost and complexity.
The people data industry is at an inflection point. Several converging forces, including artificial intelligence, privacy regulation, market consolidation, and changing buyer behavior, are reshaping how people search technology works and who wins. This chapter looks at the trends that are most likely to define the next two to five years and what they mean for anyone evaluating or using these tools.
The dominant model for most of the 2010s was the all-in-one platform. ZoomInfo epitomized this approach: one vendor providing the database, the enrichment, the intent signals, and the workflow tools, all bundled into a single contract. This model works well for enterprises that want simplicity and are willing to pay a premium for it, but it is increasingly being challenged by a composable alternative.
The composable approach, pioneered most visibly by Clay, treats people data as a series of modular components that can be assembled, rearranged, and swapped independently. Rather than buying a monolithic platform, a team selects the best provider for each specific function, such as one for email finding, another for phone numbers, a third for intent signals, and a fourth for company firmographics, and connects them through an orchestration layer that manages the data flow between components.
This approach has gained significant traction for several reasons. It avoids over-dependence on any single data source, which is important given the accuracy limitations discussed in the previous chapter. It allows teams to optimize cost by using less expensive providers for common lookups and reserving premium providers for hard-to-find contacts. And it provides flexibility to swap out underperforming components without rebuilding the entire stack.
Clay’s visual workflow builder, which now integrates more than seventy-five data providers through a single interface, has become the reference implementation for this model. Other platforms are following a similar path. Cargo, Persana AI, and several newer entrants are building their own orchestration layers, each with slightly different approaches to the same core idea: let the user compose their own data stack rather than accepting a vendor’s predetermined bundle. The trajectory is clear. Within a few years, the composable model will likely become the default for mid-market teams, while all-in-one platforms will need to become more modular to compete.
The most consequential near-term change in people data technology is the emergence of autonomous AI sales agents. Companies like 11x.ai, Artisan, and AiSDR have built products that go far beyond AI-assisted writing. These are autonomous agents that independently research prospects, compose personalized outreach, send messages, handle initial replies, qualify interest, and schedule meetings, all without human intervention at any step.
The economics are compelling. A human SDR in the United States costs between seventy and one hundred thousand dollars per year in total compensation. An AI sales agent from these providers costs a fraction of that and can operate around the clock without breaks, sick days, or ramp-up time. By late 2026, it is reasonable to expect that a significant number of companies, particularly those with high-volume, transactional sales motions, will deploy AI agents for some or all of their initial prospecting activity - https://www.salesmate.io/blog/future-of-ai-agents/.
The implications ripple outward in several directions. The volume of automated outreach will increase substantially as the cost of sending each message drops toward zero. This will put even more pressure on email deliverability, as inboxes become more crowded and spam filters become more aggressive. Response rates for automated outreach will likely decline further, creating what some industry observers are calling a “race to the bottom” in cold outreach effectiveness.
Paradoxically, this may increase the premium placed on genuine human outreach. When every inbox is flooded with AI-generated messages, a thoughtful, clearly human email or phone call stands out more than ever. The SDR role may not disappear, but it will likely evolve. Human representatives will focus on warm leads, complex deals, relationship nurturing, and strategic accounts where the personal touch creates meaningful differentiation. The routine, high-volume initial prospecting that occupies most of today’s SDR time is the portion most vulnerable to AI replacement - https://masterofcode.com/blog/ai-agent-statistics.
The traditional model for people data is the static database: a vendor scrapes, collects, or purchases data, stores it in a centralized repository, and provides access through search and API interfaces. The data is refreshed periodically, perhaps weekly or monthly, but between refreshes it sits unchanged. This model is giving way to a real-time approach that treats data as a continuously flowing stream rather than a periodically updated warehouse.
Crustdata, Coresignal, and several other providers are leading this shift. Instead of querying a database that was last updated some unknown number of days ago, users can access data that reflects changes as they happen: job changes, company funding rounds, new hires, departures, and organizational restructurings. Event-driven architectures enable users to subscribe to specific signals, such as being notified whenever a VP-level executive at a target account changes jobs or whenever a competitor posts a new engineering leadership role.
Real-time verification at the point of use is becoming standard practice. Rather than verifying an email address once and storing the result, the verification happens at the moment the email is about to be sent. This catches addresses that have become invalid since the last verification and ensures the highest possible deliverability.
The conceptual shift is significant. The word “database” implies a static collection of records. The emerging model is better described as an “intelligence stream,” a continuous flow of people data that teams tap into when they need it. This shift favors providers that invest in real-time data collection infrastructure over those that rely on periodic bulk scrapes, and it changes how teams think about data procurement from a periodic purchasing decision to an ongoing operational expense.
The long-anticipated deprecation of third-party cookies in web browsers continues to reshape digital marketing and, by extension, the people data industry. Google Chrome’s timeline for removing third-party cookies has been delayed multiple times, but the direction is irreversible. Safari and Firefox already block them by default, and the broader trend toward privacy-preserving web browsing is not going to reverse.
For people data companies, cookie deprecation matters because it disrupts the ability to track anonymous web visitors across sites and match them back to known identities. Intent data providers that relied on cookie-based tracking to identify which companies and individuals were researching specific topics have been forced to develop alternative approaches.
The emerging solution is identity resolution: the ability to match anonymous activity to known profiles using deterministic data, like login information and email addresses, supplemented by probabilistic matching techniques that use device fingerprints, behavioral patterns, and statistical models to make educated guesses. Companies like FullContact, LiveRamp, and Clearbit, now part of HubSpot, are investing heavily in identity resolution capabilities.
First-party data, information collected directly from your own customers and prospects through your own channels, is becoming dramatically more valuable in this environment. Companies that have invested in building their own databases of consented, opted-in contacts hold a structural advantage over those that relied primarily on third-party data sources. Server-side tracking, where activity data is processed on the company’s own servers rather than through browser-based cookies, is replacing client-side tracking as the primary data collection mechanism.
Privacy regulation is not slowing down. If anything, it is accelerating. The European Union’s AI Act, which began taking effect in stages starting in 2024, introduces new constraints on how artificial intelligence can be used with personal data. Automated decision-making systems, including AI-powered prospecting and lead scoring tools, face requirements around transparency, human oversight, and impact assessments.
In the United States, the momentum toward a comprehensive federal privacy law continues to build. While the exact timeline remains uncertain, the proliferation of state-level privacy laws, with more than a dozen states now having their own regulations, is creating enough compliance complexity to motivate federal action. Most industry observers expect some form of federal privacy legislation by 2027, which would create a single national standard but might also impose new restrictions that do not exist under any current state law.
Data minimization, the principle that organizations should collect and retain only the data they genuinely need, is becoming a regulatory expectation rather than a best practice. This pushes against the instinct of many sales and marketing teams to collect as much data as possible about every potential prospect. The emerging model is more surgical: collect specific data for specific purposes, use it within a defined timeframe, and then dispose of it.
“Privacy-first” data providers, those that build their data collection and processing around explicit compliance with the strictest applicable regulations, are gaining market share. Cognism’s emphasis on GDPR compliance, Dropcontact’s approach to enriching data without a shared database, and similar positioning from other providers reflects a market reality where buyers increasingly consider regulatory risk as a factor in their purchasing decisions.
Further out on the horizon, decentralized identity technologies have the potential to fundamentally restructure how professional data is owned, shared, and verified. The core idea is that individuals should control their own identity data and decide who can access it, rather than having that data scraped, collected, and sold by third parties without their direct involvement.
Blockchain-based verifiable credentials are the most developed implementation of this concept. Instead of relying on LinkedIn or a data provider to confirm that someone holds a specific degree, certification, or employment history, the individual could hold a cryptographically verifiable credential issued by the university, certification body, or employer. Anyone the individual chooses to share that credential with can verify its authenticity without needing to contact the issuing organization.
This technology is still three to five years from mainstream adoption in the professional data context. The infrastructure for issuing, storing, and verifying credentials at scale is being built, but it has not yet reached the critical mass of adoption needed to displace existing systems. When it does arrive at scale, it could upend the current model where data providers profit from aggregating and selling information that individuals consider their own.
Sales intelligence and recruiting intelligence have historically been treated as separate markets with separate tools, despite relying on fundamentally the same underlying data: information about people, their professional histories, their skills, and their organizational affiliations. This separation is beginning to dissolve.
People Data Labs and Coresignal already serve both sales and recruiting customers from the same underlying datasets. LinkedIn bridges both markets with Sales Navigator for sales teams and Recruiter for hiring teams, essentially offering different interfaces and workflows on top of the same profile data. As the underlying data becomes more commoditized, the differentiation moves to the workflow layer, and building both sales and recruiting workflows on a single data foundation becomes an obvious efficiency.
The next wave of platforms will likely offer unified people data with modular workflow layers that can be configured for sales prospecting, recruiting sourcing, competitive intelligence, or investor research. This convergence will create opportunities for companies that can serve multiple use cases and challenges for niche providers that serve only one.
The people data market is entering a consolidation phase. The rapid growth of the past five years attracted hundreds of startups, many of which offer overlapping capabilities and compete on narrow feature differences. As the market matures, the economics favor larger, more diversified platforms over small, single-purpose tools.
ZoomInfo has been acquiring aggressively, adding Chorus for conversation intelligence and Comparably for employer brand data to its core sales intelligence offering. HubSpot’s acquisition of Clearbit brought enrichment capabilities into HubSpot’s CRM ecosystem, giving HubSpot users native access to company and contact data without purchasing a separate tool. These acquisitions signal a broader trend: the major platforms are expanding their capabilities through M&A rather than building everything internally.
Over the next two to three years, many of the smaller players in the people data space will face a binary outcome: get acquired by a larger platform or struggle to compete independently. The companies most likely to thrive independently are those with genuinely differentiated data sources, such as Cognism’s compliance-first phone data or Crustdata’s real-time alternative data, or those with unique workflow capabilities that larger platforms cannot easily replicate. Generalist contact databases without clear differentiation face the most difficult path forward.
The likely end state is a market organized around three to four major platforms that provide comprehensive coverage, surrounded by a constellation of specialized tools that serve specific niches, industries, or use cases. This is the same pattern that has played out in CRM, marketing automation, and other mature enterprise software categories.
The geographic distribution of people data quality is profoundly uneven, and this unevenness is not going away anytime soon. The United States and the United Kingdom have the richest, most detailed, and most accessible professional data ecosystems in the world. LinkedIn penetration is highest in these markets, the largest data providers are headquartered there, and the legal frameworks, while increasingly complex, at least allow for commercial use of professional data under defined conditions.
Europe has strong data quality in Western markets like Germany, France, and the Netherlands, but the regulatory environment, particularly GDPR, creates additional costs and constraints that slow data collection. European-born providers like Cognism, Kaspr, and Dropcontact have built their businesses around navigating these constraints, but coverage still lags behind the US for many segments.
The Asia-Pacific region is dramatically underserved by Western-built tools. LinkedIn penetration varies widely across the region, professional networking happens on different platforms in many countries, and the cultural norms around sharing professional information online differ from Western expectations. Japan, South Korea, and Australia have reasonable LinkedIn adoption, but much of Southeast Asia, India’s small business sector, and the Pacific Islands remain data deserts for Western-built tools.
China represents not just a coverage gap but an entirely separate ecosystem. WeChat, DingTalk, and domestic platforms serve the role that LinkedIn and email play in Western markets, and the data from these platforms is largely inaccessible to Western data providers. Companies seeking to prospect in China need to work with Chinese data providers or build local teams with direct access to the domestic platforms.
Africa and Latin America represent the largest white spaces in the global people data landscape. Professional networking and digital business communications are growing rapidly in both regions, but the data infrastructure to systematically collect, organize, and make available professional data at scale has not yet been built. This represents both a challenge for companies trying to sell into these markets today and an opportunity for data providers who invest early in building coverage.
After eighteen chapters examining the people data landscape from every angle, the question that matters most is simple: what should you actually do? The answer depends on your specific situation, but several principles apply broadly.
First, do not lock yourself into a single platform. The landscape is changing too quickly for any long-term commitment to feel safe. Favor tools that export data freely, integrate through standard APIs, and do not hold your information hostage behind proprietary formats. The waterfall enrichment model, where you use multiple providers in sequence, is not just a tactic for improving hit rates. It is a strategic hedge against the risk that any single provider’s data quality or pricing changes unfavorably.
Second, invest in data quality infrastructure before investing in data volume. Verification tools, CRM hygiene processes, and regular re-enrichment cycles deliver more value per dollar than simply purchasing access to a larger database. The deliverability crisis in email and the declining effectiveness of high-volume outreach both point in the same direction: fewer, better-targeted interactions outperform mass blasting.
Third, keep a close eye on AI agent developments. The autonomous AI SDR is not a distant future concept; it is a product category that exists today and is improving rapidly. Whether you adopt these tools yourself or simply need to compete against others who have, understanding their capabilities and limitations will be important to your strategy within the next twelve to eighteen months - https://machinelearningmastery.com/7-agentic-ai-trends-to-watch-in-2026/.
Fourth, build compliance into your stack from the beginning, not as an afterthought. The regulatory trend line is unambiguous: more regulation, stricter enforcement, and larger penalties. Retrofitting compliance onto an existing operation is far more expensive and disruptive than building it in from the start. Choose providers that take compliance seriously, maintain records of your data sources and consent basis, and honor opt-out requests promptly and completely.
Fifth, remember that all of this technology serves a fundamentally human purpose. The goal of people search is not to accumulate data; it is to connect with other human beings in ways that are relevant, timely, and valuable to them. The teams that combine technological capability with genuine empathy, real understanding of their prospects’ challenges, and authentic value in their outreach will always outperform those that rely on technology alone.
The people data industry is in a period of extraordinary transformation. The tools available today would have seemed like science fiction a decade ago, and the tools available five years from now will likely make today’s capabilities seem primitive. But the fundamentals do not change. Know who you are trying to reach. Understand what they care about. Reach out with something genuinely useful. And treat their data with the respect it deserves. Get those things right, and the technology will amplify your efforts enormously. Get them wrong, and no amount of data, AI, or automation will save you.
Search billions of profiles through dozens of platforms.
Fetch real-time profiles from 1B Profiles today.
