# CompanyDataBenchmarks

> An open, reproducible benchmark of company-data APIs — firmographic search, enrichment, lookalikes and funding data. Every provider answers the same frozen test set, every raw response is published, and results are graded blind. Aggregated third-party reviews for every provider, with sources. No paid placement.

## Live benchmark: Company Search (firmographic queries)
Updated 2026-07-22 · 12 frozen queries · blind judge openai/gpt-4.1-mini · K=25.
Metric = precision of returned results (share of returned companies genuinely matching the requested industry + HQ country), plus headcount-filter adherence, depth, coverage, latency.
- Crustdata: 36% precision · 97.5% size accuracy · depth 23/25 · p50 5868ms
- Coresignal: 16.1% precision · 51.1% size accuracy · depth 7/25 · p50 191ms
Full report: /company-search. Providers whose test account hit quota limits are excluded, not scored as zero.

## Aggregated third-party reviews (with sources)
- Crustdata (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/crustdata): 4.4/5 weighted across 13 platform reviews — Crustdata has a sparse but genuinely positive review footprint: a 4.4-star rating from 13 Product Hunt reviews and essentially no G2 or Capterra corpus, reflecting how early-stage the product is. Users who have adopted it praise the developer experience and its real-time webhook alerts as a real differentiator, while the open question in reviews is whether data quality and latency hold up at production scale. Buyers should weight their own bake-off results heavily given the small sample of public reviews.
- People Data Labs (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/people-data-labs): 4.6/5 weighted across 16 platform reviews — People Data Labs has a small but favorable review base (4.6 stars from 16 G2 reviews) — modest for its market presence because it sells to developers, not end users. The consistent theme is strong person-level data and good support, offset by staleness and dedup issues at scale and the total absence of a UI or workflow layer. Reviewers commonly advise sampling against your specific titles and regions before committing spend.
- Coresignal (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/coresignal): 4.65/5 weighted across 24 platform reviews — Coresignal's public review base is sparse — roughly a dozen reviews each on G2 (4.5) and Datarade (4.8) — which fits a vendor selling bulk datasets to data teams rather than seats to salespeople. Sentiment is positive about the scale and freshness of the raw data, while the recurring criticisms are the absence of contact data (no emails or phones), a clunky self-serve experience (one Reddit tester scored it 6/10), and a high upfront commitment before quality can be assessed.
- Explorium (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/explorium): 4.84/5 weighted across 33 platform reviews — Explorium scores very well where it is reviewed (4.8 on G2 from 27 reviews, 5.0 on Gartner Peer Insights from 6), but the total review volume is small relative to sales-intelligence incumbents. Users like the breadth of data, the ease of setup, and the support team, and its MCP server has earned it goodwill among GTM engineering and AI-agent builders. The main gaps flagged are limited point-in-time data and an enterprise orientation that leaves little for small self-serve buyers.
- Apollo.io (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/apollo): 4.52/5 weighted across 11250 platform reviews — Apollo.io is one of the most-reviewed tools in the category (4.7 from ~9,600 G2 reviews) and wins on breadth and price, but sentiment splits sharply by platform: Trustpilot sits at 2.9/5 on the back of billing and account-management complaints. The persistent community criticism is data accuracy — practitioners report meaningfully higher bounce rates than Apollo's claimed 91% email accuracy, especially outside the US. The consensus is that it delivers real value if you verify lists before sending and watch the credit system.
- ZoomInfo (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/zoominfo): 4.35/5 weighted across 11217 platform reviews — ZoomInfo is the enterprise incumbent with a huge, largely positive G2 base (4.5 from ~9,000 reviews) and top placements in G2's 2026 category reports, but it also carries the category's angriest detractor reviews (1.5 on Trustpilot). Praise centers on breadth, intent data, and US contact coverage; complaints center on aggressive auto-renewal contracts, slow billing resolution, price, and data decay. Community sentiment on Reddit and buyer-advice blogs is heavy with contract-negotiation warnings.
- Clay (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/clay): 4.89/5 weighted across 351 platform reviews — Clay is beloved by power users — near-perfect scores on G2 (4.9) and Product Hunt (4.8) driven by its waterfall enrichment and AI research agent — but community sentiment is more divided than the ratings suggest. The recurring complaints are opaque credit economics, surprise billing, and a learning curve that punishes casual users, reflected in a much lower Trustpilot score. It rewards teams willing to invest in learning it and monitoring credit burn.
- Ocean.io (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/ocean-io): 3.84/5 weighted across 28 platform reviews — Ocean.io has one of the weakest review profiles in this set: a 3.1/5 on G2 (12 reviews) against a friendlier 4.4/5 on Capterra (16 reviews), with a small overall sample. Reviewers like the lookalike-search concept, the ease of use, and the support team, but the recurring verdict on sales forums is strong concept, frustrating execution — driven by low match rates, stale contact data, and missing company-hierarchy information.
- Bright Data (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/bright-data): 4.13/5 weighted across 1281 platform reviews — Bright Data has a large and mostly positive review base for this category (4.6 on G2 from 284 reviews, 4.0 on Trustpilot from ~1,000), reflecting its position as the enterprise standard for proxies and web-scale data collection. Users praise reliability, support, and network scale; the consistent pushback is cost and compliance-heavy onboarding, which make it a poor fit for small jobs. Note it competes here as raw web-data infrastructure rather than a curated company-data API.
- Exa (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/exa): 5/5 weighted across 14 platform reviews — Exa has little presence on classic review platforms (a small, perfect-score Product Hunt page is the main verified stat), but developer sentiment on Hacker News, Product Hunt, and builder blogs is strongly positive: semantic relevance beyond what Google-style keyword APIs return, clean SDKs, and fast integration. The few criticisms are about content extraction gaps and pricing at scale. Review volume is sparse relative to the sales-data incumbents, so treat scores as directional.
- Parallel (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/reviews/parallel): community sentiment only (no large platform review base) — Parallel (Parallel Web Systems) is a well-funded, developer-focused web research API with essentially no footprint on consumer review platforms yet; there were no verifiable G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, or Product Hunt ratings to report as of July 2026. What exists is a Hacker News launch discussion, customer testimonials from teams like Sourcegraph, and company-published benchmark wins. Sentiment among the developers who mention it is positive, but the sample is thin and largely vendor-adjacent, so this entry is honestly sparse.

## Who uses which provider (evidence-based, every entry sourced)
- Crustdata (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/customers/crustdata): 3 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Appsmith, Scend, Scalis
- People Data Labs (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/customers/people-data-labs): 7 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Madison Logic, Credit Pulse, Old Well Labs (OWL), Unearth, Equiam
- Coresignal (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/customers/coresignal): 3 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Aidentifi, Persona (LatAm data/scraping team), Kinhire
- Apollo.io (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/customers/apollo): 24 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Superside, Smile Digital Health, Cyera, Smartling, Ashby
- ZoomInfo (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/customers/zoominfo): 21 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. Seismic, Snowflake, OUTFRONT Media, Willamette University, Nerdio
- Clay (https://companydatabenchmarks.com/customers/clay): 18 companies with public evidence (case studies, job postings naming the tool, public mentions), e.g. OpenAI, Anthropic, Figma, Rippling, Intercom

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

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