Lead Generation
Clearbit
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Clearbit, Inc. (a HubSpot company) · clearbit.com
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.
Clearbit at a glance
- Vendor
- Clearbit, Inc. (a HubSpot company)
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Clearbit 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Clearbit is provided by HubSpot, Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Clearbit is provided by HubSpot, Inc. under Delaware law. It scored strongest on CRM sync and export, 4 to 5, and data provenance, 4 to 5: native HubSpot and Salesforce integrations enrich leads, contacts and accounts, the terms let customers keep Product Data after termination where they hold an independent legal basis, and data sources are named openly — customer enrichment traffic, public datasets, third-party paid sources, free tools like Clearbit Connect — though we found no public information on a balancing test or Article 14 notification practice. Sovereignty scored 1 to 2, the weakest counted criterion: hosting is on AWS and Google Cloud Platform data centers located in the United States, transfers rely on the Data Privacy Framework, EU Standard Contractual Clauses and the UK Addendum, and we found no public information on an EU representative, EU hosting or a published subprocessor list. Data coverage and prospecting compliance span the widest ranges, 2 to 4 each — judges crediting the 100-plus attributes and filtering depth scored high, judges weighing DACH granularity and lawful-outreach support scored low. No prices are published.
Speaks for it
- Native HubSpot and Salesforce integrations enrich leads, contacts and accounts, and CRM sync and export scored 4 to 5.
- Data sources are named openly, including contributory collection from customer enrichment traffic, with legitimate interest named among the legal bases.
- The terms let you keep Product Data after termination as long as you hold an independent legal basis.
- 100-plus firmographic, demographic and technographic attributes with six-digit NAICS, GICS and SIC categorization and normalized roles and seniorities give deep filtering.
- Company-level visitor identification with an ICP-matching dashboard and real-time scoring and routing scored 3 to 4.
Held against it
- The contracting entity is HubSpot, Inc. under Delaware law and hosting is on AWS and Google Cloud Platform data centers located in the United States — sovereignty scored 1 to 2.
- We found no public information on an EU representative, an EU hosting option or a published subprocessor list.
- Coverage is claimed only as global coverage across every country, in any language, and we found no public information on country-level breakdowns, record counts or a refresh cadence — data coverage scored 2 to 4.
- We found no public information on suppression lists, do-not-call register checks or EU cold-outreach guidance, and the terms require you to hold an independent legal basis to keep using exported data — prospecting compliance scored 2 to 4.
- We found no public information on consent handling for the tracking script under the German TDDDG, or on cookieless or consent-mode operation — visitor identification scored 3 to 4.
Best for
- Your reps live in HubSpot or Salesforce and want leads, contacts and accounts enriched natively inside the CRM.
- You identify companies behind anonymous website traffic and want ICP-matching accounts pushed to reps with real-time scoring and routing.
- You value a vendor that names its data source categories openly, including contributory collection from customer enrichment traffic.
- You want contract terms that let you keep enriched records after termination while you hold an independent legal basis.
Avoid if
- You need EU hosting, an EU representative or a published subprocessor list — the contracting entity is HubSpot, Inc. under Delaware law with hosting on AWS and Google Cloud Platform data centers located in the United States.
- Your outbound program depends on vendor-side compliance support — the terms require you to hold the independent legal basis for using exported data.
- You must verify coverage depth for Germany, Austria or Switzerland before buying — the public claim is global coverage across every country, in any language, with no country-level breakdown.
- Your DACH privacy review requires documented consent handling for website tracking — the visitor script adds firmographics to visitor IP addresses and we found no public information on a cookieless or consent-mode option.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Coverage, accuracy & freshness | 1.5 of 5 |
| Data sources & lawful basis | 2 of 5 |
| Visitor identification & intent signals | 1.5 of 5 |
| Prospecting workflow & outreach rules | 1.5 of 5 |
| CRM sync, enrichment & export | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 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
"Global coverage across every country, in any language" is the whole coverage story — the captured pages give no record counts and no country-level or regional breakdown, including for DACH, and verification is described only as "periodically" with no stated cadence. I found no public information on a bounce or credit-back guarantee, which is the piece that tells me whether bad data is my cost or theirs. 2 4 5 7
The RevOps Manager
Coverage is claimed as "Global coverage across every country, in any language" with no country, region or DACH breakdown, and we found no public information on record counts. Verification is described only as "periodically verifies" with no stated cadence, and the accuracy commitment is "commercially reasonable steps to correct errors" with no credit-back terms. The firmographic depth is genuinely good — 100+ attributes, six-digit NAICS/GICS/SIC, corporate hierarchies, normalized role and seniority — but we found no public information on verification methodology or accuracy guarantees. 7 4 5 2
The Data Protection Officer
Coverage is claimed as "Global coverage across every country, in any language" with no record counts, no per-country or DACH breakdown and no refresh cadence; the only verification statement is that accuracy is "periodically" verified. Firmographics do go beyond name and domain (100+ firmographic, demographic and technographic attributes, six-digit NAICS/GICS/SIC), but we found no public information on email or phone verification methods, and no bounce guarantee — only commercially reasonable steps to correct errors. 4 5 7
The ABM Marketer
Coverage is claimed as "Global coverage across every country, in any language" with no country-level or DACH breakdown and no record counts on the captured pages. Periodic accuracy verification is stated — data found inaccurate or out of date is removed — and 100+ firmographic, demographic and technographic attributes give me something to filter on, but we found no public information on a refresh cadence, a verification method, or credit-back terms when a record turns out bad. 7 4 5 2
The DACH Sales Director
Coverage is sold as "Global coverage across every country, in any language"; we found no public information on coverage broken out for Germany, Austria or Switzerland, or on record counts. Accuracy rests on "Clearbit periodically verifies the accuracy of all of the information in its databases", and we found no public information on a refresh cadence, email verification, register-sourced company data or credit-back terms. The 100-plus firmographic, demographic and technographic attributes plus NAICS/GICS/SIC industry codes are genuine depth, but the taxonomy reads US-built rather than Handelsregister-based. 7 4 5
The Skeptic
Coverage appears only as "Global coverage across every country" with no per-country or DACH breakdown, and verification is promised as "periodically verifies the accuracy" with no cadence behind it. The firmographic depth is real — 100+ firmographic, demographic and technographic attributes, six-digit NAICS, GICS and SIC taxonomies — but we found no public information on record counts, coverage by data type, or any bounce or credit-back guarantee; the terms offer only "commercially reasonable steps to correct errors and omissions in Product Data." 4 5 7 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
Sources are named plainly — customers via enrichment services, public datasets, third-party paid sources, and free tools like the Gmail add-in — and legitimate interest is stated as a basis, which is more than I usually see. But the route for a listed person is a privacy request form plus Help Center opt-out instructions, and I found no public information on Art. 14 notices, a published balancing test, or different handling of EU versus US records. 2 3 4
The RevOps Manager
Source categories are named (customers of enrichment services, public datasets, third-party paid sources, free tools like Clearbit Connect), which does disclose contributory collection as such, and legitimate interest is named as the legal basis with no published balancing test. Data subjects get a Privacy Request Form, honoured deletion on opt-out, and a Community Data opt-out route. We found no public information on an Art. 14 notification practice, per-record source or collection date, or different handling of EU versus US records. 4 3 2
The Data Protection Officer
Source categories are named — customer enrichment traffic, public datasets, third-party paid sources and free tools like Clearbit Connect — which is candid about contributory collection, and legitimate interest is stated as the legal basis, but without any published balancing test. A privacy request form and deletion on opt-out are promised, plus a community-data opt-out; we found no public information on an Article 14 notification practice for people added to the database, on a dedicated notice for them, or on per-record source traceability. 2 3 4
The ABM Marketer
Source categories are named openly — customers using enrichment services, public datasets, third-party paid sources, and free tools like Clearbit Connect — with legitimate interest named as a basis "among other legal bases", and a Privacy Request Form plus honored deletion requests give the people in the database a route in. What holds this back: no Art. 14 notification practice, no published balancing of the legitimate interest, and the route for listed professionals is a request form rather than a described self-service opt-out. 4 3 2
The DACH Sales Director
Source categories are named plainly — customers using enrichment services, public datasets, third-party paid sources and free tools like Clearbit Connect — and the legitimate interest of "both Clearbit and its business customers" is cited as a basis; we found no public balancing test, Art. 14 notification practice or per-record source and collection date. People in the database get a privacy request form and a Help Center opt-out for community data, with deletion honoured on request. The contributory collection from customers' enrichment traffic being disclosed as such is the strongest point for a German buyer. 4 2 3
The Skeptic
The privacy notice is candid about sources — customers using enrichment services, public datasets, third-party paid sources, and free tools like Clearbit Connect, so contributory collection is disclosed as such — with legitimate interest named as a basis. But we found no public information on a balancing test, an Art. 14 notification practice for people added to the database, or a dedicated privacy notice for the professionals listed in it; the routes evidenced are a Privacy Request Form and a Community Data opt-out via a Help Center article. 3 4 2
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
IP intelligence identifies companies behind visits and a visitor dashboard flags accounts matching the ideal customer profile — company level, with filters, which is exactly the workflow my SDRs would run. I found no public statement that the script requires consent where it sets cookies, no consent-mode or cookieless option, and no method behind the intent-signal claims. 5 6 7
The RevOps Manager
Identification is company-level via "IP intelligence" with firmographics attached to visitor IP addresses, plus a visitor dashboard surfacing ICP-matching companies; no person-level identification is evidenced, which is the right design floor. But we found no public information on a consent position under the German cookie/tracking rule, cookieless or consent-mode operation, or consent-platform integration, and "best-in-class" is claimed without method. 6 5 7
The Data Protection Officer
The product identifies companies behind anonymous website traffic by adding firmographic data to visitor IP addresses and sells this as "best-in-class IP intelligence", but we found no public information on whether the script sets cookies, how it behaves without consent, or any position on the German tracking-consent requirement under §25 TDDDG. The "over 90% of visitors are unidentified" figure is asserted with no method, and we found no public information on a cookieless mode or consent-management-platform integration. 5 6 7
The ABM Marketer
Company-level identification is real and useful to me: IP intelligence adds firmographics to visitor IPs, a visitor dashboard highlights companies matching my ideal customer profile, and real-time scoring and routing pushes the signal to reps while it is warm. But the intent source is Clearbit's own IP data with no named third-party intent co-op, the "over 90% of your website visitors are unidentified" claim carries no method, and we found no public information on a consent position under the German TDDDG, cookieless operation, or consent-platform integration. 5 6 7 1
The DACH Sales Director
Identification is reverse-IP and company-level — "Add rich firmographic data to visitor IP addresses" feeding a visitor dashboard of ICP-matching companies — with quality claimed as "best-in-class IP intelligence data" and no method shown. We found no public information on a consent statement for the script, a cookieless or consent-mode option, or the TDDDG position for German traffic, so this cannot survive a DACH data protection officer review as evidenced. 5 7 6
The Skeptic
Company-level identification from visitor IP addresses is documented, with a visitor dashboard highlighting ICP-matching companies, but "best-in-class IP intelligence data" is asserted without any method. We found no public information on how the tracking script behaves, whether it sets cookies, a consent-mode or cookieless option, or any position on consent under the German TDDDG; the cookie-related items on the pages concern the vendor's own site, not the product. 5 6 7
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
Firmographic, technographic and role/seniority filters with advanced segmentation are evidenced, but every ounce of legal risk sits with the buyer: the terms let customers keep exported contacts only "as long as you have an independent legal basis to use such Product Data". I found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, do-not-call register checking, or cold-outreach guidance for Germany or any other EU market. 2 3 5
The RevOps Manager
The filtering side is well evidenced — 100+ firmographic, demographic and technographic attributes for ICP definition, advanced segmentation, contacts by department/role/seniority, and real-time scoring and routing. The compliance side is nearly empty: we found no public information on a do-not-contact or suppression list, cold-outreach guidance for EU markets, or do-not-call register checks. The terms simply put the burden on the buyer to hold "an independent legal basis to use such Product Data". 5 3 2
The Data Protection Officer
Segmentation across 100+ attributes and contact identification by department, role and seniority give the buyer strong prospecting filters, and the visitor dashboard directs outbound to ICP-matching companies. We found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, on country-specific outreach rules such as the German consent requirements for cold calls and emails, or on any do-not-call register checking — nothing on these pages helps the buyer use the list lawfully. 3 5 7
The ABM Marketer
The list-building muscle is there — 100+ firmographic, demographic and technographic attributes, contacts by department, role and seniority, corporate hierarchies to route the right lead — but everything about lawful outreach is left with me: the terms require an "independent legal basis" from the customer to keep using the data. We found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, checks against national do-not-call registers, or cold-outreach guidance for German and other EU markets. 5 3 7 2
The DACH Sales Director
Search depth is real — 100-plus firmographic, demographic and technographic attributes, normalized roles and seniorities, corporate hierarchies, real-time scoring and routing — but we found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, do-not-call register checks, or outreach guidance for Germany, Austria or Switzerland under UWG §7. The terms leave the legal question with the buyer, allowing exported data to be kept only "as long as you have an independent legal basis to use such Product Data", and nothing in the workflow shows a rep that a cold call to Hamburg needs prior consent. 5 7 2
The Skeptic
Filtering is the strength — contacts by department, role and seniority, 100+ attributes to define an ICP, advanced segmentation — but we found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, do-not-call register checking, or guidance on cold outreach rules in any EU market. The terms put the legal risk on the buyer: continuing to use Product Data after termination requires "an independent legal basis to use such Product Data." 3 5 2
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
Enrichment of leads, contacts and accounts in both HubSpot and Salesforce is documented, webhooks are named, and the terms state plainly that customers may keep Product Data after termination if they hold an independent legal basis — useful exit clarity. I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, scheduled re-enrichment, or a documented API with stated limits. 2 4 6 7
The RevOps Manager
Enrichment of existing records is native on HubSpot and Salesforce — "matching, cleansing, or updating records" across leads, contacts and accounts, which reads as updates rather than duplicates — and webhooks and third-party connections exist. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, scheduled re-enrichment, or a documented API with stated limits. In the vendor's favour, the terms state plainly that the customer "shall not be required to delete Product Data" on termination if an independent legal basis exists, though we found no public information on objections propagating into synced records. 2 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Enrichment of leads, contacts and accounts is evidenced for both HubSpot and Salesforce with matching, cleansing and updating of records, webhook and connection support, and the terms state plainly that the customer may keep product data after termination where they have an independent legal basis. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, propagation of objections or corrections into synced records, or API documentation with stated limits and per-call costs. 2 6 7
The ABM Marketer
Native integrations with HubSpot and Salesforce cover the two CRMs my reps live in, enriching leads, contacts and accounts with matching and cleansing of existing records, and the terms state plainly that I may keep Product Data after termination as long as I hold an independent legal basis. We found no public information on bidirectional sync, scheduled re-enrichment, field mapping and deduplication, or documented API limits and per-call credit costs — rate limiting appears only as a security control. 6 7 2 4
The DACH Sales Director
Native HubSpot and Salesforce integrations enrich every lead, contact and account, webhooks and rate-limited API access exist, and the terms state plainly that customers "shall not be required to delete Product Data upon expiration or termination" while they hold an independent legal basis. We found no public information on bidirectional sync, field mapping or deduplication, stated API limits, per-call credit costs, or propagation of a listed person's objection into synced records. 6 7 2 4
The Skeptic
Enrichment of existing records into HubSpot and Salesforce is well evidenced for leads, contacts and accounts, and the terms state plainly that customers are not required to delete Product Data on termination if they retain an independent legal basis. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, bidirectional sync or an API documented with stated limits — webhooks are named once in the terms and rate limiting appears only as a security control — and per-call credit costs cannot exist because no prices are published. 6 7 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 contracting entity is HubSpot, Inc. under Delaware law and exclusive Delaware jurisdiction, hosting is AWS and Google Cloud Platform data centers located in the United States, and I found no public information on subprocessors, an EU representative, or any EU hosting option. Named transfer safeguards — the Data Privacy Framework, Standard Contractual Clauses and UK Addendum — are stated, which keeps this just above the floor. 2 3 4
The RevOps Manager
Everything sits in the US: HubSpot, Inc. is the contracting entity under Delaware law, hosting is AWS and Google Cloud Platform data centers located in the United States, with the Data Privacy Framework, SCCs and the UK Addendum named as transfer mechanisms. That is more disclosure than unstated hosting, but we found no public information on an EU representative, an EU hosting option, or a published subprocessor and data-partner list. 2 4 3
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity and controller is HubSpot, Inc. in the United States under Delaware law with exclusive Delaware jurisdiction, and all hosting is on AWS and Google Cloud Platform data centers located in the United States — a database about EU residents who never chose the vendor, processed wholly outside the EU. Transfers are at least covered by named mechanisms (Data Privacy Framework, Standard Contractual Clauses, UK Addendum), but we found no public information on subprocessors or data partners, and no EU representative or EU hosting option. 2 3 4
The ABM Marketer
The contracting entity is HubSpot, Inc. in the United States under Delaware law, and all hosting sits in Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud Platform data centers located in the United States, with transfers covered by the Data Privacy Framework and Standard Contractual Clauses. Nothing European appears anywhere in the chain: we found no public information on an EU entity or Art. 27 representative, EU hosting, or a published subprocessor list. 2 3 4
The DACH Sales Director
The contracting entity is HubSpot, Inc. in the United States under Delaware law, with hosting in "Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud Platform data centers located in the United States", so EU residents' contact data is processed outside the EU under the Data Privacy Framework and Standard Contractual Clauses. We found no public information on an EU representative, EU hosting, or a published subprocessor list — from a DACH seat this is a US-governed chain for data on people who never chose the vendor. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is HubSpot, Inc. under Delaware law with exclusive Delaware jurisdiction, and the trust page states hosting on AWS and Google Cloud Platform data centers located in the United States — records about professionals in the database are processed outside the EU, with the Data Privacy Framework and Standard Contractual Clauses named as transfer mechanisms. We found no public information on subprocessors, an EU representative, or any EU hosting option. 2 3 4
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
No prices are public at all — the captured pricing page shows only a "Get Started" call to action, and credits per data type, seats, expiry and overages are all behind a sales conversation. I cannot budget a single month for my team from these pages. 2 5
The RevOps Manager
There is no public pricing at all — the product pages show only a "Get Started" call to action, so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages. The legal terms do disclose auto-renewal of twelve months on Orders versus one month self-service, and that fees are exclusive of taxes; we found no public information on tiers, credit costs per data type, seat pricing or credit expiry. 5 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pricing page shows only a "Get Started" call-to-action with no prices, and the terms address fees only in the abstract — exclusive of taxes, renewing monthly for self-service or twelve months for executed orders. With no tier price, credit allowance, per-seat cost, visitor-identification tier or API price published anywhere we reviewed, the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages. 2 5
The ABM Marketer
The only pricing-related content on the captured pages is a "Get Started" call to action — no tiers, no credit costs per data type, no seat prices — so I cannot begin to compute an annual invoice. The terms add that fees exclude taxes and that self-service plans renew monthly while orders renew for twelve months, but no public prices exist to build on. 5 2
The DACH Sales Director
The captured pricing page shows "No pricing information stated on page; only a Get Started CTA", so no tier, credit cost, seat price or visitor-identification tier is computable from public pages. The terms add only auto-renewal periods and that all fees are exclusive of taxes. 5 2
The Skeptic
The captured pages carry no pricing information at all — only a "Get Started" call to action — and we found no public information on credit costs per data type, credit expiry, seat pricing, or the cost of API access and CRM sync. The terms disclose auto-renewal in twelve-month or one-month cycles and that fees exclude taxes, but nothing that would let a buyer compute an invoice. 5 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Clearbit
Is Clearbit European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Clearbit is based.
Where does Clearbit store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Clearbit have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Clearbit?
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: Clearbit alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Ownership, Legal entity, Data residency, 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.
- 10 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 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
- 2 compliance 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
- 2 hosting 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
- 2 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
- 2 subprocessors 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 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 support 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
- 4 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page clearbit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage clearbit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage clearbit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page — found from the homepage clearbit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap clearbit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap clearbit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap clearbit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →