Lead Generation
Adapt
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Adapt.io · www.adapt.io
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Adapt at a glance
- Vendor
- Adapt.io
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Adapt 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Adapt.io is a B2B contact-data and prospecting product. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 16 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Adapt.io is a B2B contact-data and prospecting product. The captured page shows list building, account discovery and research, ABM, CRM integration with an available API, enrichment with 50+ attributes across firmographic, demographic and technographic types, 3,000+ specialized technology sectors, and a Chrome extension that pulls contact data directly from LinkedIn or the company website. The bench is strongest on CRM sync and export, where scores run 2 to 4 with most at 4, and weakest on sovereignty, scored 0 to 1 with no sovereignty attributes on record — no hosting location, contracting entity, controller, subprocessor or transfer basis appears. Data coverage scores sit at 1: no record counts, country or DACH coverage, verification method or refresh cadence stands behind the word "verified". Visitor identification scores 0 to 1, as the only signal described is high-growth detection via key hires and employee expansion, not site visits. Judges split modestly on data provenance, spanning 0 to 2 — some credit the disclosed LinkedIn collection, others find no stated legal basis, notice or removal route. No prices appear on the captured pages.
Speaks for it
- CRM integration, list building, list export and an available API are stated on the captured page.
- Enrichment is claimed at 50+ attributes across firmographic, demographic and technographic types for every contact in your CRM.
- A Chrome extension pulls contact data directly from LinkedIn or the company website, with 500K+ users claimed.
- Filtering spans 3,000+ specialized technology sectors for list building and ABM.
- A described signal flags rapidly growing companies through key hires and employee expansion.
Held against it
- No record counts, country coverage, verification method or refresh cadence appears behind the word 'verified'.
- No stated legal basis, privacy notice for the people listed, or opt-out and removal route appears on the captured pages.
- No website-visitor identification is described; the only growth signal is key hires and employee expansion.
- No suppression list, do-not-call checks or cold-outreach guidance appears, leaving outreach risk with the buyer.
- No hosting location, contracting entity, controller, subprocessor or transfer basis is on record.
Best for
- You build outbound lists filtered across 3,000+ specialized technology sectors and push them to your CRM.
- You want to enrich every CRM contact with firmographic, demographic and technographic fields.
- Your reps prospect in-page on LinkedIn and company websites.
- You target fast-growing companies spotted through key hires and headcount expansion.
Avoid if
- You need website-visitor identification or intent signals to know which target accounts are actually in market.
- Your DPO or procurement must review hosting location, controller, subprocessors and transfer basis before signing.
- You must see record counts, DACH coverage or a verification method before committing budget.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Coverage, accuracy & freshness | 0.5 of 5 |
| Data sources & lawful basis | 0.5 of 5 |
| Visitor identification & intent signals | 0.5 of 5 |
| Prospecting workflow & outreach rules | 1 of 5 |
| CRM sync, enrichment & export | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
Coverage, accuracy & freshness
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How much of the target market the database actually covers — judged on DACH and EU coverage as much as North American — and what the vendor documents about verification and refresh, because accuracy claims cannot be checked from outside.
0 — No stated coverage, no refresh cadence, no verification method; accuracy asserted as a percentage with nothing behind it.
3 — Headline record counts for the whole database, thin or unstated European coverage, and no description of how often records are re-verified.
5 — Coverage stated per country or region including DACH, email verification described, a stated refresh cadence, and firmographics beyond name and domain.
8 — Coverage broken down by country, industry and data type (email, direct dial, mobile), verification method and refresh cadence documented, company data drawn from official registers where available, and a bounce or credit-back guarantee with stated terms.
10 — The vendor is accountable for its data: per-country coverage and accuracy methodology published, every field carrying a last-verified date visible to the user, register-sourced company data, and credit-back terms that make inaccuracy the vendor's cost rather than the buyer's.
The SDR Team Lead
Nothing on the captured pages tells me how many records exist or where — no coverage figures by country or region, nothing on the DACH markets, and no refresh cadence or verification method behind the word "verified". The only numbers are 3,000+ tech sectors and 500K+ chrome-extension users, which say nothing about database size or whether the emails actually reach a person. 1
The RevOps Manager
The captured homepage sells "verified" and "accurate" contact data with nothing behind the words: no record counts, no country or regional breakdown, nothing on DACH or EU coverage, no verification method and no refresh cadence. The only coverage-flavoured claim is 3,000+ specialized tech sectors, which is a filter taxonomy rather than evidence of what the database holds, and I found no public information on accuracy guarantees or re-verification. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Everything quantitative here is about taxonomy, not coverage: 3,000+ technology sectors and 50+ enrichment attributes, with contact data called "accurate" and "verified" and nothing behind those words. I found no public information on record counts, country-level or DACH coverage, a refresh cadence, a verification method, or any accuracy guarantee a buyer could hold the vendor to. 1
The ABM Marketer
My list is weighted to DACH and the captured pages give no coverage figures at all — no record counts, no country or regional split, nothing behind the word 'verified' as a verification method, and no refresh cadence. The only breadth signals are '50+' enrichment attributes and 'over 3,000 specialized tech sectors', which describe a taxonomy, not the market. We found no public information on European or German-speaking coverage. 1
The DACH Sales Director
The captured homepage lists contact attributes, 50-plus enrichment fields and 3,000-plus tech sectors, but states no record counts and no coverage by country or region — we found no public information on Germany, Austria or Switzerland specifically, no verification method and no refresh cadence. The only accuracy signal is the word 'verified' in the Chrome extension blurb, with nothing behind it. 1
The Skeptic
The marketing page claims "accurate" and "verified" contact data across 50-plus attributes and 3,000-plus tech sectors, but offers no record counts, no country coverage for DACH or anywhere in Europe, and we found no public information on a refresh cadence, a verification method, or bounce and credit-back terms. "Verified" as a bare adjective with nothing behind it tells a buyer precisely nothing about how often a record is re-checked. 1
Data sources & lawful basis
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the personal data in the database comes from and on what legal basis it is processed — as evidenced on the vendor's own pages. Covers Art. 6(1)(f) legitimate interest, the Art. 14 notice to the people in the database, and whether they can find, object to and remove their record.
0 — No statement of where contact data comes from or on what legal basis; "GDPR-compliant" asserted without explanation, and no way for a listed person to object.
3 — Sources described in general terms ("public sources", "partners"), legitimate interest named without any balancing, and an opt-out request form as the only route for data subjects.
5 — Source categories named (registers, company websites, contributory networks, licensed partners), legitimate interest stated as the basis for EU records, a dedicated privacy notice for the people in the database, and a self-service opt-out or removal process.
8 — The above plus an Art. 14 notification practice described (people informed when added), contributory or browser-extension collection disclosed as such, a legitimate-interest assessment summarised publicly, and EU records handled differently from US records where the law differs.
10 — Provenance is traceable per record: the source and collection date available for each contact, Art. 14 notices sent and documented, the balancing test published, objections honoured across the whole dataset and suppressed permanently, and no data sourced by scraping behind logins or from contributors' address books without their contacts' knowledge.
The SDR Team Lead
The pages say the chrome extension pulls contact data from LinkedIn and company websites, but I found no public information on the legal basis, any notice to the people listed, or a route for them to object or be removed. For a database full of EU contacts that is the first question my compliance team asks, and it goes unanswered. 1
The RevOps Manager
The page gives no statement of where the contact data comes from or on what legal basis it is processed, and I found no privacy notice for the people in the database, no legitimate-interest statement and no opt-out or removal route. The only collection mechanism described is a Chrome extension finding contact data on LinkedIn and company websites, which raises the provenance question rather than answering it. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only sourcing disclosure is a Chrome extension that gathers contact data "directly from LinkedIn or the company website" — contributory collection presented as a sales feature rather than provenance, carried out by a claimed 500K+ users. I found no public information on a legal basis, a dedicated privacy notice for the people listed, any objection or removal route, or any Art. 14 notification practice. 1
The ABM Marketer
The one provenance fact on the pages is the Chrome extension that finds contact data from LinkedIn and company websites — contributory collection at least disclosed as such. Beyond that we found no public information on the legal basis for processing, no privacy notice for the people in the database, and no opt-out or removal route, which is close to the floor for a product that is personal data about people who never chose the vendor. 1
The DACH Sales Director
The single source statement anywhere is that the browser extension pulls contact data from LinkedIn and company websites, which tells me collection happens through scraping public profiles. We found no public information on the legal basis for holding EU residents' contact data, no privacy notice for the people in the database, and no route for a listed person to object or be removed. 1
The Skeptic
The only provenance signal anywhere is the Chrome extension pulling contact data "directly from LinkedIn or the company website"; we found no public information on source categories for the database, the legal basis for EU records, an Art. 14 notice, or any opt-out route for the people listed. Collection from LinkedIn surfaces is disclosed as such, but nothing on lawful basis or data-subject rights appears in what we hold. 1
Visitor identification & intent signals
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Identifying companies behind website visits and surfacing buying intent — scored on what is identified (company or person), how the tracking works, and whether the vendor states that its script needs consent under §25 TDDDG and how it behaves without it.
0 — No visitor identification or intent data, or person-level identification of EU visitors with no statement of legal basis.
3 — Reverse-IP company identification with a cookie-setting script, no statement about consent, and match rates claimed without method.
5 — Company-level identification with filters, visit history per company, a stated position that the script requires consent where it sets cookies, and a consent-mode or cookieless option.
8 — Company-level only for EU traffic by design, cookieless operation documented, integration with common consent management platforms, intent topics or page-level signals with the source of third-party intent data named, and alerts routed to owners.
10 — Identification that survives a DPO review: no personal data of visitors stored, the TDDDG and GDPR position published and specific, third-party intent data sourced from a named co-op or panel with its consent basis stated, and scoring on intent that the user can trace back to the underlying visits.
The SDR Team Lead
The only signal feature described is identifying high-growth companies through key hires and employee expansion — a useful trigger, but it is not website visitor identification. I found no public information on identifying companies behind site visits, any tracking script, or how it behaves around consent. 1
The RevOps Manager
I found no public information on website visitor identification or third-party intent data; the growth signal on the page is key hires and employee expansion, a firmographic hiring signal rather than identification of companies visiting our site. Nothing on the page describes a tracking script, consent handling, or any statement on the German telemedia rules. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured page evidences no website-visitor identification — no reverse-IP lookup, no tracking script, and no position on consent under the German TDDDG; the nearest thing is an account-level signal flagging "high-growth companies" through key hires and employee expansion, with the source of that signal unstated. I found no public information on consent handling for EU traffic of any kind. 1
The ABM Marketer
This is my core need — knowing which of my target accounts are actually in market — and we found no public information on website visitor identification, intent topics, alerts to account owners, or consent handling for any tracking script. The closest capability is identifying rapidly growing companies through key hires and employee expansion signals, with no stated method or data source behind it. 1
The DACH Sales Director
The only signal product described is identifying high-growth companies through key hires and employee expansion — that is hiring data, not website visitors. We found no public information on identifying companies behind site visits, on intent topics, or on any statement about consent under the German telecom-privacy rule. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on website-visitor identification at all — no reverse-IP script, no statement on consent under the German telecom-privacy rule, no cookieless option. The nearest feature is "high-growth" detection from key hires and employee expansion signals, with no source named for those signals and no way to trace a score back to underlying events. 1
Prospecting workflow & outreach rules
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Search, list building and outreach — and whether the product helps the buyer stay within UWG §7 and the GDPR once the list exists, rather than leaving the legal risk entirely with the customer.
0 — A search box and an export button; nothing on the pages about what the buyer may lawfully do with the contacts.
3 — Filters on firmographics and job title, saved lists, and a terms clause making the customer solely responsible for compliance.
5 — Advanced filters including technographics and triggers, company-level lists and alerts, a global suppression or do-not-contact list, and guidance on cold outreach rules in the main EU markets.
8 — The above plus country-aware handling (for example flagging German contacts where cold calls and emails require consent), phone numbers checked against national do-not-call registers where they exist, and opt-outs from outreach synced back to the database.
10 — Compliance is part of the workflow: outreach channels restricted or flagged per country and contact type by default, suppression shared across the whole account and every export, the Art. 14 notice supported at first contact, and a documented record of how each contact entered the buyer's pipeline.
The SDR Team Lead
List building, ABM targeting and account research are advertised alongside export and a CRM push, which is the basic toolkit I need. I found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact handling, do-not-call checks, or any guidance on what outreach the buyer may lawfully run with these contacts. 1
The RevOps Manager
List building, account discovery and research, ABM opportunities, exports and 50+ firmographic, demographic and technographic attributes with 3,000+ tech-sector filters clear the mechanics of a prospecting tool. What I found no public information on is everything that keeps a DACH buyer out of trouble: no suppression or do-not-contact list, no guidance on cold-outreach rules in EU markets, and no statement on whose desk compliance sits. 1
The Data Protection Officer
List building, ABM, account discovery, export and a CRM push are all marketed, which is a step beyond a bare search-and-export. But I found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, on country-aware handling of German contacts, or on any guidance about what the buyer may lawfully send — the moment a list leaves this product, the entire legal risk is the customer's. 1
The ABM Marketer
List building, ABM opportunities, account discovery and export are all on the page, with 3,000+ tech sectors to slice by, which covers the search-and-export basics. Beyond that we found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, country-aware handling of German contacts, do-not-call register checks, or any guidance on cold outreach rules in the main EU markets — the legal risk would sit entirely with me. 1
The DACH Sales Director
List building, ABM, account research and export to CRM are confirmed, with firmographic and technographic filtering implied by the sector taxonomy. But we found no public information on a do-not-contact or suppression list, on checking numbers against do-not-call registers, or on any guidance about what a buyer may lawfully send to a German contact — my team would carry every bit of that risk themselves. 1
The Skeptic
List building, ABM and account research are marketed hard and the extension prospecting loop is described, but we found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, country-aware flags for German contacts, checks against do-not-call registers, or any guidance on cold-outreach rules. Nothing in the captured pages tells the buyer what they may lawfully do with the contacts they export. 1
CRM sync, enrichment & export
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting the data into the systems where sales works — CRM sync, enrichment of existing records, API — and what happens to exported data, and to the buyer's access to it, when the subscription ends.
0 — Manual CSV export only; no CRM integration and no API.
3 — A one-way push to one CRM, CSV export, and no statement on whether exported data may be kept after cancellation.
5 — Native sync with the major CRMs including field mapping and deduplication, enrichment of existing CRM records, and a documented API with stated limits.
8 — Bidirectional sync with scheduled re-enrichment, update and deletion propagated when a record changes or a person objects, webhook or API access with credit costs per call published, and data retention rights after cancellation stated plainly.
10 — The vendor treats the buyer's CRM as the system of record: objections and corrections propagated into synced records automatically, full change history per field, a versioned API with a deprecation policy, and exit terms that say exactly which data the customer may keep and for how long.
The SDR Team Lead
Generic CRM integration, enrichment of every CRM contact across firmographic, demographic and technographic fields, and an available API are all advertised. But no specific CRM is named, and I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API limits, or what happens to exported data when the subscription ends. 1
The RevOps Manager
The page claims enrichment of every contact in my CRM with 50+ attributes, an available API, and that I can "build lists, export, and plug your CRM", so a push path exists. But the sync I actually run is not what the page shows: I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, whether re-enrichment updates or duplicates records, how objections propagate into synced records, or what data I may keep when the subscription ends. 1
The Data Protection Officer
An API is advertised as available, CRM integration and export are marketed, and enrichment of "every contact in your CRM" with 50+ attributes is claimed. I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, sync direction, API limits, or — the question I ask first — whether exported contacts may lawfully be kept after cancellation. 1
The ABM Marketer
The pages show list export, CRM integration, enrichment of every contact in your CRM with 50+ firmographic, demographic and technographic attributes, and an available API — enough in principle to get data into where my reps work. But we found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, sync direction or frequency, API limits and costs, or what happens to exported data when the subscription ends. 1
The DACH Sales Director
CRM integration, list export and an API are all confirmed, and enrichment of existing CRM records is stated in so many words for firmographic, demographic and technographic fields. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API limits or pricing per call, nor on whether a customer may keep their exported contacts after cancelling. 1
The Skeptic
The page claims you can "build lists, export, and plug your CRM" and enrich CRM contacts with 50-plus attributes, but names no CRMs, and we found no public information on sync direction, field mapping, deduplication, API documentation or rate limits, or whether exported data may be kept after cancellation. The claims sit above a bare CSV export, but there is nothing verifiable underneath them. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where a database of EU residents' personal data is held, who the contracting entity and controller are, and which subprocessors see it. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted heavily here, because the product itself is personal data about people who never chose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and EU residents' contact data processed outside the EU with no stated transfer basis.
3 — Non-EU contracting entity with an EU representative under Art. 27, or EU hosting offered while enrichment, support or AI processing stay non-EU.
5 — EU contracting entity and EU hosting as standard, but parts of the chain — data partners, enrichment sources, tracking infrastructure — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU contracting entity and controller, EU hosting on named infrastructure, subprocessor and data-partner list published, and any non-EU transfer named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, controller, hosting, data partners and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a DPA covering both the customer's data and the database records the customer exports.
The SDR Team Lead
No sovereignty attributes are on record, and the pages give me nothing to work with: no contracting entity or controller, no hosting location, no subprocessor list. For a database of EU residents' personal data, I found no public information placing any part of the chain in Europe or naming a transfer basis. 1
The RevOps Manager
No sovereignty attributes are on record for this vendor: I found no public information on where EU residents' contact data would be hosted, who the contracting entity and controller are, or which subprocessors and data partners see it. For a product that is personal data about people who never chose the vendor, silence on every one of those points decides the score. 1
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public information on the contracting entity, the controller, hosting location, a single subprocessor, or any transfer basis — and the product's stock in trade is personal data about people who never chose this vendor. With no sovereignty evidence on record, there is nothing here a DPO could review, let alone approve. 1
The ABM Marketer
There is nothing on record here: we found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity, controller, subprocessors, or any transfer basis for EU residents' contact data. For a DACH-bound account list I cannot verify a single sovereignty fact from public pages, so this sits at the very bottom of what I can judge. 1
The DACH Sales Director
No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting location, contracting entity, controller and subprocessors are all unstated on the captured pages, and there is no stated transfer basis for EU residents' contact data. For a product that is itself personal data about people who never chose this vendor, that absence decides the score on its own. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, the controller, or a single subprocessor — for a product whose entire output is personal data about EU residents, silence of this depth is itself the finding. No transfer basis is stated anywhere because no transfer is acknowledged anywhere. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone — including credits per email, phone number and mobile, credit expiry, seat pricing, visitor-identification tiers and the API — in a category where the unit of billing is often invented by the vendor.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A monthly headline exists, but what a credit buys, whether credits expire, or the cost of an additional seat is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with credit allowances given, but at least one commonly needed piece (mobile numbers, extra seats, API access, CRM sync) is unpriced or behind a sales call.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with credits per data type, credit expiry and rollover, per-seat costs, overage rates, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: the annual invoice derivable for a given number of seats, exported contacts by data type, identified companies and API calls, with every credit cost and the refund rule for inaccurate data published.
The SDR Team Lead
The captured pages show no prices at all — no tiers, no credit costs per data type, no seat pricing, nothing. Every number I would need to compute an annual invoice would have to come out of a sales call, and that is exactly the invoice surprise I refuse to sign up for. 1
The RevOps Manager
No price appears anywhere on the captured page: no tiers, no credit costs per email or phone number, no seat pricing, and nothing about the API or CRM sync. Every cost question is a sales conversation, so the annual invoice is unknowable from public pages. 1
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public information on any price: no tier costs, no credit price per email, phone number or mobile, no seat pricing, no visitor-identification or API pricing, and no refund rule. A buyer cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from the captured page. 1
The ABM Marketer
No prices appear on the captured pages: no tier prices, no credit costs per email, phone number or mobile, no seat or API pricing, and no term or VAT treatment. There is no way to compute a real annual cost from public information alone. 1
The DACH Sales Director
We found no public information on pricing at all — no tier prices, no credit costs per email or phone number, nothing on seats, credit expiry or the API. The annual invoice is a conversation with sales, and my buyers cannot budget that. 1
The Skeptic
Not one price appears: no tiers, no credit cost for an email, a phone number or a mobile, no seat pricing, no visitor-identification tier, and we found no public information on credit expiry or refund rules for inaccurate data. The invoice is a conversation with sales, and everything about it stays there. 1
Questions about Adapt
Is Adapt European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Adapt is based.
Where does Adapt store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Adapt have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Adapt?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Cognism (3/5), Dealfront (2.5/5) and Apollo.io (2.5/5) highest among the other 35 Lead Generation products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Cognism (UK / wider Europe). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Adapt alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (adapt.io). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.adapt.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →