COMPARE:
Icypeas or Prospeo for bulk email finding
Icypeas and Prospeo both do finding work emails in bulk across European companies, and this page puts them on the same seven questions. Mamba Labs builds the Apify actors here, Email Waterfall Orchestrator included, and the page says where it is the wrong answer.
If you only read one part
Icypeas is built for a large file and priced for one. Prospeo is built for a lookup inside a workflow. The shape of the job decides this before accuracy does.
The same questions, both tools
| Icypeas | Prospeo | Email Waterfall Orchestrator | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it actually does | Finds and verifies work emails one at a time or in bulk files, and does domain scans from a company name. | 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 | Good European coverage, and a bulk mode that will take a very large file without falling over. | 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 in monthly plans, with separate counters for finding and for verifying. | 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 web app for bulk files, an API for everything else, and a Chrome extension for one off lookups. | 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 | Its own crawl and pattern work, run per request against the company domain. | 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 | Sign up, upload a file, take the results. There is nothing to wire for the bulk path. | 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 | The integrations catalog is short, so it usually sits behind a script rather than inside a tool. | 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
- Icypeas wins on what it actually does, what it costs. A European email finder and verifier priced for bulk work.
- Prospeo wins on what it takes to set up. An email finder that works from a LinkedIn URL or a name and domain.
- Email Waterfall Orchestrator wins on coverage and hit rate. Runs several finders in order on your own keys, and stops at the first verified answer.
- Nobody wins on how it fits a workflow, where the data comes from, where it stops. Icypeas and Prospeo give the same answer on those, and we are not going to invent a difference.
Both products
The honest answer
If the work is a one off file of fifty thousand rows, Icypeas handles it and the per row cost is the point. If the work is a column in a table, Prospeo's integrations mean there is nothing to build. Icypeas would sit behind a script you now maintain. Accuracy between the two is close enough that your own sample is the only test worth running. Neither should be the only finder on a list of any size.
Some of the links on this page are affiliate links.