COMPARE:
FullEnrich or Prospeo for contact details
A straight comparison of FullEnrich and Prospeo for finding a work email and a phone number for a named person, answered on the same seven dimensions as every other compare page here. Mamba Labs builds the Apify actors here, Email Waterfall Orchestrator included, and the page says where it is the wrong answer.
The short answer
FullEnrich is a waterfall you rent, so one account covers many providers. Prospeo is one provider done well, and it costs less per row when its own coverage is enough.
The same questions, both tools
| FullEnrich | Prospeo | Email Waterfall Orchestrator | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it actually does | Runs a chain of email and phone providers per contact and returns the first verified answer. | Turns a LinkedIn profile URL, or a name plus a domain, into a work email address and verifies it. | Calls a chain of email finders in the order you set and returns the first address that verifies. |
| Coverage and hit rate | Wider than any single provider, because the chain covers what each one alone misses. | Strong on profiles with a public LinkedIn presence. Weaker where the only input is a name and a small company domain. | As wide as the providers you put in it, because it is the chain rather than one provider. |
| What it costs | Credits per enriched contact, charged on a found answer rather than on every provider tried. | Credits, one per successful find, with unused credits rolling into the next month on the paid plans. | A couple of cents per row on top of whatever your own provider keys cost. |
| How it fits a workflow | A bulk upload, an API and native Clay and CRM integrations. | An API, a Chrome extension and a bulk upload. Clay and Make both call it directly. | One call per row from Clay or from a script, with the provider that answered named in the output. |
| Where the data comes from | Many third party providers, called on their keys rather than yours, and it names which one answered. | Its own crawl plus contributed data, resolved against the profile you pass in. | Whichever provider answered, and it tells you which one did. |
| What it takes to set up | Minutes. There are no provider accounts to open, which is the whole idea. | Sign up, take the key, paste it into whatever is calling it. Under ten minutes. | Bring your own keys, set the order, run it. The keys are the work. |
| Where it stops | You cannot pick the order or bring your own keys, so the cost per row is theirs to set. | It answers about one person at a time. It will not build the list of people for you. | It buys nothing for you. With no provider keys it has nothing to call. |
The same seven questions are asked on every compare page here, in this order, so two of these pages can be read against each other.
Who wins what
- FullEnrich wins on coverage and hit rate, what it takes to set up. A waterfall that calls many providers in order so you do not have to buy them all.
- Prospeo wins on what it costs. An email finder that works from a LinkedIn URL or a name and domain.
- Email Waterfall Orchestrator wins on where the data comes from. Runs several finders in order on your own keys, and stops at the first verified answer.
- Nobody wins on what it actually does, how it fits a workflow, where it stops. FullEnrich and Prospeo give the same answer on those, and we are not going to invent a difference.
Where to get them
What is best for you
Run both on the same three hundred rows and compare found rate against total cost, not against the per credit price. That is the only comparison that means anything here, and the answer moves by market. FullEnrich's advantage is largest on the rows a single provider misses, which is where a European list lives. If Prospeo alone clears the bar on your list, the waterfall is paying for providers you did not need. If it does not, buying five provider accounts to build your own chain is a worse deal than renting theirs unless the volume is genuinely large.
Some of the links on this page are affiliate links.