Lead Generation
ContactOut
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by ContactOut · contactout.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.
ContactOut at a glance
- Vendor
- ContactOut
- 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 ContactOut 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. ContactOut is a lead-generation product whose pages show a search portal over 20+ data points, a Chrome extension, bulk enrichment, email campaigns, a cloud phone dialer, and an API feeding a CRM, ATS, sequencer or AI agents. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
ContactOut is a lead-generation product whose pages show a search portal over 20+ data points, a Chrome extension, bulk enrichment, email campaigns, a cloud phone dialer, and an API feeding a CRM, ATS, sequencer or AI agents. The strongest scores are data coverage and CRM sync and export, each a flat 4: 350M professionals, 800M people profiles and 100M direct dials, hourly updates, native ATS and CRM integrations, and an MCP option. The weakest are pricing transparency (a flat 1 — the only public statement is "Sign up for free"), visitor identification (a flat 0; we found no public information on tracking or intent capability), and data provenance (a flat 2: sourcing is described only as "publicly available professional information and partner datasets", with no lawful basis named). Judges split on prospecting compliance, 2 to 4: they credit rich filters — job titles, revenue, skills, technologies used — but weigh differently that we found no public information on suppression lists or EU cold-outreach guidance; the only stated limit is "professional B2B use only". Sovereignty scores sit at 0-1, no attributes on record.
Speaks for it
- Search spans 20+ data points — job titles, companies, revenue, skills, locations, company size, departments, technologies used.
- Native ATS and CRM integrations, bulk enrichment, an API and an MCP connector feed records into existing stacks.
- Headline counts of 350M professionals, 800M people profiles and 100M direct dials, updated hourly.
- Email campaigns and a cloud phone dialer ship alongside the search portal and Chrome extension.
Held against it
- Coverage is published as global headline counts — we found no country-level breakdown for DACH or the EU.
- Verification rests on "Triple-verified with 99% Confidence" — we found no public information on the method, bounce guarantees or credit-back terms.
- The only pricing statement is "Sign up for free" — we found no public information on tiers, credit costs, or seat and API prices.
- Sourcing is one general sentence — "publicly available professional information and partner datasets" — with no lawful basis named.
- No sovereignty attributes are on record — we found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity or subprocessors.
Best for
- You need a large global contact database — the pages state 350M professionals and 100M direct dials — feeding your CRM or ATS through native integrations or the API.
- You build outbound lists with deep filters — titles, revenue, skills, technologies used — and manage cold-outreach compliance in-house.
- You want bulk enrichment plus an API and MCP connector that feed a sequencer or AI agents.
Avoid if
- You need to size DACH or EU coverage before buying — the pages publish global headline counts only.
- You must budget an annual invoice from public prices — "Sign up for free" is the only statement available.
- Your review requires a documented lawful basis, an opt-out route for listed persons and a subprocessor list — we found no public information on these.
- You need website visitor identification or intent signals — we found no public information on any such capability.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Coverage, accuracy & freshness | 2 of 5 |
| Data sources & lawful basis | 1 of 5 |
| Visitor identification & intent signals | 0 of 5 |
| Prospecting workflow & outreach rules | 1.5 of 5 |
| CRM sync, enrichment & export | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 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
Huge homepage numbers — 350M professionals, 100M direct dials, 40M company profiles — but no per-country breakdown, so I cannot tell how much of that is reachable in DACH or anywhere in Europe. "Triple-verified with 99% Confidence" names no method and there is no bounce guarantee or credit-back; hourly updates and firmographics like industry, headcount and email formats are the only substance on the captured page. 1
The RevOps Manager
All figures are global headlines — 350M professionals, 100M direct dials, 40M company profiles — with hourly updates and firmographics like industry and headcount, which clears a bare counts page; but there is no country or regional breakdown anywhere, so DACH and EU coverage are unstated, and verification is the slogan "Triple-verified with 99% Confidence" with nothing behind the number. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Headline counts are everywhere — 350 million professionals, 800 million people profiles, 100 million direct dials — with hourly updates and firmographics like industry and headcount. But I found no public information on coverage per country, nothing on DACH or EU coverage, and "triple-verified with 99% Confidence" is an accuracy percentage with no method behind it and no bounce or credit-back terms. 1
The ABM Marketer
Headline counts are everywhere — 350M professionals, 40M company profiles, 100M direct dials — with hourly updates and firmographic filters like industry and headcount. But coverage is never broken down by country, so I found no public information on DACH or EU coverage, and the only accuracy backing is "Triple-verified with 99% Confidence" with no method, per-field verification or credit-back terms behind it. 1
The DACH Sales Director
Big headline numbers — 350 million professionals, 800 million people profiles, 100 million direct dials — but I found no figures for Germany, Austria or Switzerland, so a Mittelstand buyer cannot tell whether his market is even in there. "Triple-verified with 99% Confidence" is an accuracy percentage with nothing behind it, though hourly updates and firmographics like industry and headcount are stated. I found no public information on a bounce guarantee or register-sourced company data. 1
The Skeptic
Headline counts everywhere — 350M professionals, 800M people profiles, 100M direct dials — plus an hourly update claim and firmographics like industry and headcount, but we found no country-level breakdown, so DACH and EU coverage is a guess. "Triple-verified with 99% Confidence" is a label with no method behind it, and we found no bounce or credit-back terms that would make inaccuracy the vendor's cost rather than the buyer's. 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 page says data comes from "publicly available professional information and partner datasets, for professional B2B use only" — general terms, nothing specific. With 150M personal emails in the database, we found no public information on the legal basis for EU records, no privacy notice for the people listed, and no opt-out or removal route, which is a liability my team inherits the moment we hit send. 1
The RevOps Manager
Sourcing is described only in general terms — "publicly available professional information and partner datasets" — and I found no public information on the lawful basis, on a privacy notice for the people in the database, or on an opt-out route, which matters acutely with 150M personal emails advertised on the same page. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only provenance statement is that data "sources from publicly available professional information and partner datasets" — general terms, no named source categories, no legal basis, no balancing test. I found no public information on an Art. 14 notice to the people in the database, no privacy notice for them, and no opt-out or removal route; with 150 million personal emails counted, that silence is the deciding fact for me. 1
The ABM Marketer
Sourcing gets one general sentence — "publicly available professional information and partner datasets" — holding 150M personal emails with no stated legal basis. I found no public information on a legitimate-interest position, a privacy notice for the people listed, or any opt-out route, which is exactly the conversation-starter a DPO shuts down. 1
The DACH Sales Director
Sources are described only in general terms — "publicly available professional information and partner datasets" — with no legal basis named, no balancing test and no notice for the people in the database. The "professional B2B use only" line is a use restriction, not a lawful basis, and I found no opt-out or removal route for listed persons. 1
The Skeptic
The only source statement is "publicly available professional information and partner datasets" — general terms, with "partner" undefined and no lawful basis named. We found no privacy notice addressed to the 800M people whose profiles are in the database, no legitimate-interest statement, and no opt-out or removal route on the captured pages. 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
We found no public information on website visitor identification or intent signals — the page sells search, enrichment, a cloud dialer and email campaigns, with no company-level traffic de-anonymization described. With nothing on how such tracking would work, there is equally nothing on consent under the German tracking rule, so this is simply not evidenced. 1
The RevOps Manager
The captured page shows a search portal, Chrome extension, cloud phone dialer, ContactSheets, email campaigns and enrichment — no visitor identification or intent capability appears, and I found no public information on any such capability, so there is nothing to assess on consent for tracking scripts. 1
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public information on any visitor identification, reverse-IP lookup, intent signals or website tracking script, so there is nothing to assess on consent under §25 TDDDG — the captured page describes search, enrichment and outreach only. 1
The ABM Marketer
This is my core need and the captured page offers none of it: no website script, no reverse-IP or company-level visit history, no intent topics with a named third-party source, no alerts to account owners. The product as evidenced is contact search, enrichment, email campaigns and a dialer — nothing that tells me which of my 300 accounts is in market. 1
The DACH Sales Director
I found no public information on visitor identification or intent data — no script, no reverse-IP company matching, and no statement on consent under the German Telekommunikation-Telemedien-Datenschutz-Gesetz. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on visitor identification, intent signals, or any website-tracking script, so there is nothing to assess on company-versus-person identification, cookie behaviour, or a consent position. 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
Search filters are genuinely strong for finding the right buyer — job titles, revenue, skills, departments, technologies used across 20+ data points — which is what my SDRs live in daily. But we found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, no guidance on cold outreach rules in Germany or other EU markets, and no do-not-call register checks; the B2B-use restriction leaves the legal risk with the buyer. 1
The RevOps Manager
Filters are genuinely rich — job titles, revenue, skills, technologies used — and the only statement on lawful use is the restriction to "professional B2B use only"; I found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, on cold outreach guidance for the main EU markets, or on how compliance responsibility is split between vendor and buyer. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Search filters run deep — job titles, revenue, technologies used, departments — and email campaigns plus a cloud phone dialer hand the buyer outreach channels, with only a "professional B2B use only" restriction stated. I found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, on country-aware handling of German contacts, or on guidance for cold outreach under UWG §7. 1
The ABM Marketer
Search is genuinely strong — titles, revenue, skills, departments, technologies used — with campaigns and a cloud dialer attached, but the only statement about lawful use is "for professional B2B use only". I found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, country-aware flags for German contacts, or guidance on consent rules for cold calls and email, so the UWG and GDPR risk sits entirely with me. 1
The DACH Sales Director
Filters go well beyond the basics — job titles, revenue, skills, technologies used — and there is an email campaign tool plus a cloud phone dialer, but the only compliance content is a "professional B2B use only" restriction that leaves the legal risk with the customer. I found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, on guidance for cold outreach rules in Germany or the EU, or on do-not-call register checks. 1
The Skeptic
The search side is real — job title, revenue, skills and technologies used among 20+ data points — and outreach is sold directly alongside it via email campaigns and a cloud phone dialer. But the only compliance-adjacent statement is a "professional B2B use only" restriction; we found no suppression or do-not-contact list, no country-aware flags for German contacts, and no guidance on consent rules for cold calls or emails in the main EU markets. 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
Native CRM and ATS integrations, bulk enrichment of contacts and accounts, an API feeding the CRM or sequencer and even an MCP server — the pipes to move data into our stack exist on paper. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, bidirectional sync, API limits or per-call credit costs, and nothing on what happens to exported records when the subscription ends. 1
The RevOps Manager
Native ATS and CRM integrations, bulk enrichment and an API that feeds "your CRM, ATS, sequencer, or AI agents" go beyond a one-way push; but I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, scheduled re-enrichment, propagation of deletions and objections into synced records, or what the customer may keep after cancellation — the exit terms I read first. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Native ATS and CRM integrations with bulk enrichment, plus an API delivering 350 million records hourly into the CRM, are stated plainly — more than a one-way push. I found no public information on field mapping or deduplication, on API limits or per-call costs, and nothing on what the buyer may keep when the subscription ends, which is where controller duties bite. 1
The ABM Marketer
Enrichment "in bulk or through native ATS and CRM integrations" plus an API on hourly-updated records gives a real path into my stack, and ContactSheets and an MCP option round it out. But the CRMs go unnamed, and I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API rate limits, or what happens to exported records when the subscription ends. 1
The DACH Sales Director
Native CRM and ATS integrations, bulk enrichment, an API and even an MCP connector are advertised, which clears the low bar. But I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API limits, or what happens to exported contacts and the buyer's access once the subscription ends. 1
The Skeptic
"Native ATS and CRM integrations", an API feeding "your CRM, ATS, sequencer, or AI agents", and bulk enrichment of existing records are claimed, which is genuine plumbing. But we found no field mapping or deduplication detail, no API rate limits or credit costs per call, and no statement on whether exported data may be kept after cancellation. 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: the captured page and our sourcing give no statement of where the data is hosted, which entity contracts, or which subprocessors see it. For a database of 800M people profiles that will include EU residents, unexplained hosting and no stated transfer basis is not something I would put in front of our DPO. 1
The RevOps Manager
No sovereignty attributes are on record and the captured page is silent: I found no public information on the contracting entity, hosting location, subprocessor list, or any transfer basis, for a database holding hundreds of millions of personal emails about people who never chose this vendor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting location, contracting entity, controller and subprocessors are all unstated on the captured page, and no transfer basis is named for EU residents' contact data. I cannot tell where a database of this scale is processed or who stands behind it as controller. 1
The ABM Marketer
The independently sourced sovereignty record came back with no attributes on file: no contracting entity location, no hosting region, no subprocessor or data-partner list, no transfer basis. For a database of 800M people profiles that includes 150M personal emails, I found no public information placing any part of the processing chain in Europe. 1
The DACH Sales Director
There is no public information on where this vendor is based, who the contracting entity and controller are, where the data is hosted, or which subprocessors see it. For a database holding hundreds of millions of professionals' emails and direct dials, that silence is something I could not take to a German data protection officer. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured pages name no contracting entity or controller, no hosting location, and no subprocessors for a database holding 800M people profiles including 150M personal emails. With nothing published, there is no transfer basis or safeguard to assess in either direction. 1
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 only pricing fact on the page is a free signup; we found no public information on tier prices, what a credit buys for an email versus a mobile number, credit expiry, seat costs or API costs. My team cannot budget a quarter on this — the real invoice is unknowable from the public pages. 1
The RevOps Manager
The only pricing statement on the page is "Sign up for free"; I found no public information on tier prices, what a credit buys, credit expiry, per-seat costs or API pricing, so a buyer cannot compute any annual invoice from the captured material. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only public price statement is "Sign up for free"; I found no public information on tier prices, what a credit buys, credit expiry, per-seat costs, minimum term or VAT treatment. No buyer could compute an annual cost from these pages. 1
The ABM Marketer
The only pricing signal is "Sign up for free" — a door, not a price. Credits per email, phone or mobile, credit expiry, seat costs, API access and contract terms are all unstated, and I found no public information on any of them, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages. 1
The DACH Sales Director
Beyond a "Sign up for free" button there are no public prices — no tiers, no credit allowances, nothing per seat and nothing for the API. The real annual invoice is unknowable from these pages. 1
The Skeptic
The only pricing statement on the captured pages is "Sign up for free" — we found no tier prices, no credit costs per email, phone or mobile, no expiry or rollover terms, and no seat or API pricing. A buyer cannot compute any annual cost from what is public. 1
Questions about ContactOut
Is ContactOut European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where ContactOut is based.
Where does ContactOut store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does ContactOut have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to ContactOut?
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: ContactOut 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 could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 1 product 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
- 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 contactout.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →