Lead Generation
Albacross
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Albacross Nordic AB · albacross.com
Compare with Leadinfo → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Albacross Nordic AB, a Stockholm lead-generation vendor, identifies website visitors as companies via a copy/paste tracking script, with AI intent scoring and automated email and LinkedIn outreach. The bench is firmest on CRM sync and export, scored 4-6: bi-directional sync with Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive, over 30 marketplace integrations, automatic CSV export, plus API and webhooks. Sovereignty follows at 4-5 on the vendor's own pages — a Swedish entity under Swedish law, Stockholm arbitration, servers in Ireland — while the privacy policy acknowledges service providers outside the EU or EEA under "appropriate safeguards as set out in the GDPR" and we found no published subprocessor list, and the independent sovereignty record came back unknown for entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure. Weakest are data coverage and pricing transparency: a 1.7X EU identification-rate claim over 3 billion monthly events stands alone, and no tier, credit or seat price appears on the captured pages. Visitor identification, the core product, scores 3-4. Judges did not meaningfully split; prospecting compliance spans 2-3 on differing weight on absent outreach guardrails.
Speaks for it
- Bi-directional CRM sync with Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive, backed by over 30 marketplace integrations, automatic CSV export, API access and webhooks — scored 4-6, the highest-scored criterion.
- A European base stated on the vendor's own pages: contracting entity Albacross Nordic AB in Stockholm, Swedish governing law, SCC arbitration in Stockholm, and servers located in Ireland.
- Company-level identification of website visitors with on-site and off-site intent signals, AI buying-intent scoring, and segmentation by company size, industry and past behaviour.
- A working outreach engine: advanced filters and segments, a LinkedIn contact finder, and AI-generated email and LinkedIn sequences.
- Free 14-day access with no credit card needed, on monthly or annual billing with annual shown as "Save 30%".
Held against it
- The captured pricing page shows no tier, credit, seat or VAT figure, while prepaid fees are non-refundable and plans auto-renew unless cancelled at least 30 days before expiry.
- Coverage rests on a 1.7X EU identification-rate claim across over 3 billion events monthly; we found no public information on record counts, per-country coverage, verification method or refresh cadence.
- We found no public information on where the contact data comes from or its lawful basis, nor on an Article 14 notice; a listed person's only stated route is emailing support with an IP address and company name.
- We found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, do-not-call register checks or cold-outreach guidance, while the terms exclude liability short of gross negligence or intent.
- The privacy policy acknowledges service providers outside the EU or EEA under "appropriate safeguards as set out in the GDPR"; we found no published subprocessor list, and the independent sovereignty record is unknown across entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure.
Best for
- You need website-visitor signals landed in Salesforce, HubSpot or Pipedrive through documented bi-directional sync, webhooks and automatic CSV export.
- You want a European contracting chain on paper — a Swedish entity and law, arbitration in Stockholm, hosting in Ireland — and can verify the subprocessor chain with the vendor before signing.
- Your demand-gen team wants on-site and off-site intent signals scored by AI and routed to Slack or Teams while accounts are still active.
Avoid if
- You must compute an annual invoice before committing: the captured pages show no tier, credit, seat or VAT figure, and prepaid fees are non-refundable.
- You need the vendor to carry outreach compliance: we found no public information on suppression lists or cold-outreach guidance, and the terms seat the customer as controller with liability excluded short of gross negligence or intent.
- You must document provenance to a DPO: the pages assert "GDPR COMPLIANT" as a badge while we found no public information naming contact-data sources or the lawful basis, and rights are exercised by emailing support with an IP address and company name.
The scores
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
The homepage sells a proprietary database mapping '3 billion events monthly' and an identification rate '1.7X higher' backed only by unnamed customer tests, and enrichment is called 'verified' with no method, refresh cadence, or per-country split anywhere in the captures. As a buyer I cannot tell how many contacts exist in Germany or anywhere else; we found no public information on verification method, refresh cadence, or any bounce guarantee. 1 2
The RevOps Manager
The coverage story is a 1.7X EU identification-rate claim and three billion monthly events with nothing behind the method, and we found no public information on database size, per-country coverage, verification method or refresh cadence. Firmographics go as far as company size and industry, and verified contact details are asserted as marketing with no stated guarantee. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Coverage appears only as a relative claim — identification rates "1.7X higher than most intent data platforms" across 3 billion monthly events — with no database size, no per-country or DACH breakdown and no method behind the number. "Enrich data with verified contact details" is the entire verification story; we found no public information on refresh cadence, verification method, or any bounce or credit-back guarantee. 1 2
The ABM Marketer
The captured pages give a headline of over three billion monthly events and a '#1 identification rates in the EU' claim resting on unnamed customer tests, but no record counts for the contact database, no verification method and no refresh cadence; 'verified contact details' stands as a bare claim. We found no public information on per-country coverage, accuracy methodology or any bounce or credit-back guarantee, so I cannot estimate how many of my three hundred target accounts the data would actually resolve. 1 2
The DACH Sales Director
The only scale statement I can find is a claim of over 3 billion events monthly with a number-one identification-rate claim for the EU backed by unnamed customer tests — I found no coverage figures for Germany, Austria or Switzerland, and no public information on record counts, verification method or refresh cadence. Firmographic fields beyond name and domain are the one point in its favour. 1 2
The Skeptic
Coverage appears only as an events volume ("over 3 billion events monthly") plus a "#1 identification rates in the EU" claim with nothing behind the 1.7X comparison, and "verified contact details" stated as an adjective rather than a process. Firmographics do go beyond name and domain — company size and industry are shown — but I found no public information on contact counts by country, refresh cadence, verification method, or any bounce or credit-back terms. 1 2
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
'GDPR COMPLIANT' appears as a badge, and the privacy policy confirms GDPR applies and that transfers outside the EEA occur under 'appropriate safeguards', but we found no public information on where the contact records come from or the legal basis for processing them. A listed person's only route is an email to support requiring their IP address and company name, which is heavier lifting than a self-service opt-out. 3 4
The RevOps Manager
A GDPR COMPLIANT badge appears with no explanation of where the contact data comes from or on what lawful basis it is processed, and we found no public information on legitimate-interest reasoning or any Art. 14 practice for the people in the database. The LinkedIn extension collection is at least disclosed plainly, and a listed person has exactly one route — emailing support with their IP address and company name. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
"GDPR COMPLIANT" appears as a badge with no explanation behind it, and we found no public information naming the sources of contact records, the legal basis for EU records, or any balancing test. We found no public information describing an Article 14 notice to the people in the database; the only route offered to a listed person is an email to support with their IP address and company name, while the privacy policy does at least state that Albacross acts as controller for its own use of data collected via customers' sites. 1 3 4
The ABM Marketer
Where the contact data comes from and on what legal basis is not described — no source categories, no legitimate-interest statement, and compliance badges appear with nothing behind them. The one comfort for people in the database is an email channel to support requiring an IP address and company name, plus a statement that website personal information is not sold or rented. We found no public information on notifying individuals when they are added, or on a published balancing assessment. 1 3 4
The DACH Sales Director
The pages assert GDPR compliance as a badge and name the Swedish supervisory authority, but I found no public information on where the contact data comes from or on what legal basis the people in the database are processed, and no balancing for any legitimate interest. Objection is possible only by emailing support with your IP address and company name; the LinkedIn extension's cookie access is at least disclosed in the privacy policy. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The pages name no source for the contact data and give no lawful-basis statement of any kind, while "GDPR COMPLIANT" appears as a badge; a listed person's only route is an email to support requiring an IP-address and company name. The terms do disclose that Albacross reprocesses data collected via the customer's use of the services as controller for its own purposes, but I found no public information on an Art. 14 notification practice or a balancing test. 1 3 4
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
Company-level identification through a copy/paste tracking script is the real product here, with cookie data retained 24 months, segmentation by company size, industry and past behaviour, and on-site plus off-site intent signals. But we found no public statement on consent for the script, no cookieless or consent-mode option, and the identification-rate claim cites no method, so I cannot hand this to a DPO. 1 2 3
The RevOps Manager
Company-level identification with advanced filters and segmentation, plus on-site and off-site intent signals scored by AI, is the core of the product — but the identification-rate claim comes without method, and we found no public information on the script's consent position under TDDDG, consent mode or cookieless operation even though cookies are stored for twenty-four months. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Identification is company-level — "Identify website visitors as companies" — with segmentation by company size, industry and behaviour plus AI intent scoring, which is the right shape for Europe. But deployment is a copy/paste tracking script with cookie data retained for twenty-four months, and we found no public information on consent: nothing on the script requiring consent where it sets cookies, on a consent-mode or cookieless option, or on consent-management integration, and the off-site intent signals have no named source. The 1.7X identification-rate claim arrives without method. 1 2 3
The ABM Marketer
This is the core of the product and most of what I need: company-level identification of website visitors, on-site and off-site intent signals, AI buying-intent scoring, advanced filters and segments, with webhooks plus Slack and Teams to push signals while they are warm. The tracking is a copy/paste script with cookies stored for twenty-four months, the identification-rate claim is comparative with no method, and the source of the off-site intent data is not named. We found no public information on consent-mode or cookieless operation, or on the vendor's position that the script needs consent under the German tracking rule. 1 2 3
The DACH Sales Director
Company-level identification from a copy/paste tracking script is the core promise, with intent scoring, segments and on-site plus off-site signals, and the 1.7X identification-rate claim rests on unnamed customer tests. The twenty-four month cookie retention tells me the script sets cookies, yet I found no public information on a consent position under the Telekommunikation-Digitale-Dienste-Datenschutz-Gesetz, a consent mode or a cookieless option. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Company-level identification via a copy/paste tracking script, with cookie data kept for "twenty-four (24) months", and an identification-rate claim made without method. I found no public statement that the script needs consent under the TDDDG, no consent-mode or cookieless option, and no named source behind the off-site intent signals; filters and segmentation by company size, industry and past behaviour are the extent of what is evidenced. 1 2 3
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
Advanced filters and segments plus auto-engage email and LinkedIn sequences cover the outreach motion, but we found no public information on a global do-not-contact list, screening against do-not-call registers, or any guidance on cold outreach rules in Germany and other EU markets. That means the legal risk of every sequence my reps send lands entirely on my team. 1 2
The RevOps Manager
Filters on company size, industry and past behaviour, a LinkedIn contact finder and AI auto-engage sequences make a real prospecting workflow, but we found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, country-aware handling of German or other EU contacts, or guidance on cold outreach rules. The terms also exclude liability for anything short of gross negligence or intent. 1 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The workflow side is present — advanced filters and segments, auto-engage via email and LinkedIn, AI-generated sequences, outreach statistics — but every compliance question is left with the buyer. We found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, on country-aware flags such as consent requirements for German contacts, on do-not-call register checks, or on outreach guidance for EU markets; we found no public information in the terms either on what the customer may lawfully do with the contacts. 1 2 4
The ABM Marketer
Filters, segments and automated email and LinkedIn sequences give me a full outreach engine, but the captured pages say nothing about what I may lawfully do with the contacts once I have them. We found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, checks against do-not-call registers, or country-aware handling for German contacts where cold email and calls need consent. The automation multiplies my outreach volume while every legal question stays with me. 1 2
The DACH Sales Director
Filters on company size, industry and past behaviour, segments, a LinkedIn contact finder and auto-engage sequences give a real workflow, but everything downstream is automation with no guardrails: I found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, on checking numbers against do-not-call registers, or on guidance for cold outreach rules in the main EU markets. The disclosed LinkedIn automation — profile visits, connection requests, messaging — makes that silence expensive for a Mittelstand buyer carrying the UWG risk alone. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
The outreach machinery is well evidenced — auto-engage over email and LinkedIn, AI-generated sequences, sending through Gmail and Outlook — yet the captured pages say nothing about what a buyer may lawfully do with the contacts: I found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, country-aware flags, or guidance on cold-outreach rules. The terms seat the customer as controller and exclude liability save for gross negligence or intent, so the outreach-compliance risk sits entirely with the buyer. 2 3 4
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
Bi-directional sync for Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive, a marketplace of over 30 integrations, automatic CSV exports, webhooks and API access get data into where my reps work, and enrichment of records with contact details exists. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API limits, or what happens to exported contacts when the subscription ends. 1 2
The RevOps Manager
Bidirectional native sync with Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive plus webhooks, API access and automatic CSV export is more plumbing than most tools bring, and a thirty-plus integration marketplace backs it up. But we found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, scheduled re-enrichment, how an objection propagates into synced records, or what data the customer may keep after cancellation — the exit terms are what I care about most and they are silent. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The integration surface is real: bi-directional sync with Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive, Google Sheets, automatic CSV export, API access and webhooks. But the API and webhooks carry an asterisk with no published limits or credit costs, and we found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, or whether updates and objections propagate into synced records. On exit the pages state only that prepaid fees are non-refundable — the customer becomes controller the moment a list is exported, yet we found no public information on which exported data they may keep, or for how long. 1 2 4
The ABM Marketer
Bi-directional sync with Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive, over thirty marketplace integrations, Google Sheets, automatic CSV export, API access and webhooks — the plumbing to land signals in my team's systems is real and evidenced. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, documented API limits, or whether an objection by a contact propagates into synced records. What happens to exported data and my access after cancellation is also not stated, beyond a no-refund and auto-renewal clause. 1 2 4
The DACH Sales Director
Bi-directional sync with Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive, a marketplace of over thirty integrations, automatic CSV exports and API and webhook access put this solidly above a one-way push to a single CRM. I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API limits or per-call costs, and nothing on whether exported data may be kept after cancellation. 1 2
The Skeptic
Bi-directional sync with Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive, a marketplace of over 30 integrations, automatic CSV exports, and API and webhook access are the best-evidenced capabilities here. But API access carries an asterisk on the pricing page with no published limits or per-call costs, and I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, deletion propagation, or what a buyer may keep after cancelling — the terms only auto-renew unless cancelled 30 days out and refund nothing. 1 2 4
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
The terms name Albacross Nordic AB in Stockholm under Swedish law with SCC arbitration in Stockholm, and the privacy policy puts hosting in Ireland while acknowledging service providers outside the EEA under generic 'appropriate safeguards as set out in the GDPR'. We found no public information on subprocessors, ownership, or certification, so parts of the chain remain unexplained even though the entity and hosting are European. 3 4
The RevOps Manager
A Swedish contracting entity under Swedish law with SCC arbitration in Stockholm, hosting on servers in Ireland, and clean dual-role language (processor for the customer, controller for Albacross' own purposes) put this solidly in Europe. But subprocessors and data partners are unnamed, and transfers outside the EEA are acknowledged only with unspecified appropriate safeguards, so I cannot see the full chain. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages state a Swedish contracting entity — Albacross Nordic AB, Stockholm — with servers in Ireland, Swedish governing law, the IMY named as supervisory authority, and a data processing agreement that enters into force on acceptance of the terms. The same policy acknowledges service providers based outside the EU/EEA with "appropriate safeguards as set out in the GDPR" left unnamed, and we found no public information listing subprocessors or data partners; the independently sourced sovereignty profile likewise leaves ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed. An EU entity on Irish hosting with an unexplained non-EEA chain is a middle position, not a sovereign one. 3 4
The ABM Marketer
The contracting entity is Albacross Nordic AB in Stockholm with a wholly owned subsidiary in Krakow, storage on servers in Ireland, and the Swedish supervisory authority named — a European chain on paper. Service providers may be based outside the EU or EEA and are said to carry 'appropriate safeguards as set out in the GDPR', with no list of who they are or which instrument applies. We found no public information on a published subprocessor or data-partner list, certification, or DPA terms covering the records I would export. 3 4
The DACH Sales Director
The contracting entity is Albacross Nordic AB in Stockholm with a wholly owned Polish subsidiary, servers are stated to sit in Ireland, governing law is Swedish and disputes go to Stockholm arbitration — a genuinely European base. It falls short of a higher mark because the privacy policy acknowledges service providers outside the EU and EEA with only a generic appropriate-safeguards sentence, and I found no public information on a published subprocessor list or the legal basis of those transfers. 3 4
The Skeptic
The vendor's own pages put the contracting entity in Stockholm under Swedish law with "servers located in Ireland", but the privacy policy admits providers outside of the EU or EEA with safeguards named only as "appropriate safeguards as set out in the GDPR". I found no public subprocessor list, named transfer instrument, or certification, and the independently sourced sovereignty record came back unknown across entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure — so everything here rests on the vendor's own assertions. 3 4
Pricing transparency
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 pricing page shows a 14-day trial without a credit card, monthly versus annual billing with a 30% annual saving, one-time add-on credits, auto-renewal with 30 days' cancellation notice, and the terms add a no-refund policy and 14-day invoice terms. But we found no public tier price, credit cost per contact or phone type, seat cost, or VAT treatment in the captures, so I cannot compute what a year for eight SDRs would cost. 2 4
The RevOps Manager
The pricing page discloses monthly versus annual billing with a 30% annual saving, a free 14-day trial without credit card, and that one-time credits and add-on credits exist — but we found no public information on what the tiers cost, what a credit buys, credit expiry, extra seats, or the price of the asterisked API, webhook and ABM features. Prepaid fees are expressly non-refundable, so the real annual invoice is not computable from what is published. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public price figures on the captured pricing page: no tier prices, no credit allowances, no per-seat costs, no VAT treatment — only the choice of monthly or annual billing, a 30% annual saving, and an invitation to "Learn about add-on credits" with no price or expiry stated. API access, webhooks and account-based marketing each carry an asterisk with no figure, while the terms add automatic renewal, 30 days' cancellation notice, 14-day invoice terms and no refunds of prepaid fees. No part of the annual invoice can be computed from these pages. 2 4
The ABM Marketer
The captured pages describe a billing structure — a fourteen-day free trial without credit card, monthly or annual plans with annual billing 'Save 30%', optional one-time credits, and campaign pricing at a fixed cost per impression capped by the campaign budget — but not one price figure for a tier, a credit or a seat. I cannot compute even a rough annual invoice for a team working three hundred accounts. Renewal, invoice and refund terms are stated, yet every amount behind them sits with sales. 2 4
The DACH Sales Director
The pricing page shows plan features, a 14-day free trial with no card and a 30 percent annual-billing saving, and the terms add auto-renewal with 30 days' notice, invoices due in 14 days and no refunds — but I found no public tier prices, no price for credits beyond the fact that one-time credits can be bought, no seat costs, and API, webhooks and ABM access sit behind asterisks on the pricing page. 2 4
The Skeptic
A pricing page exists with monthly and annual billing ("Annual billing Save 30%"), a 14-day free trial without credit card, and one-time add-on credits, yet the captured pages show no tier figures, no price per credit, no statement of what a credit buys or whether credits expire, and no per-seat cost. Account-based marketing is billed as a fixed cost per Impression capped at the Campaign Budget with no rates shown, and the only refund language runs against the buyer: prepaid fees are not refunded. The invoice is not computable from public pages. 2 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in SE ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. No commercial register (e.g. Bolagsverket) is named; the SE code is derived from the Swedish corporate form "AB", the Swedish registration number and the registered address in Stockholm, Sweden.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The statement sits in the general security section, names no hosting provider, and other pages mention transfers to third-party data service providers, so it does not explicitly confirm EU residency for every part of the service.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 9 product 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
- 3 pricing 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
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 integrations fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. 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 (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.albacross.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.albacross.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.albacross.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.albacross.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap help.albacross.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap help.albacross.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap help.albacross.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap help.albacross.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap help.albacross.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap help.albacross.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →