whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Lead Generation

Hunter

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Hunter Web Services, Inc. · hunter.io

Compare with Snov.io → 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 Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Knows the company becomes controller the moment a list is exported. Wants the source and legal basis of every record stated, the Art. 14 notice actually sent, a removal route for the people in the database, and a visitor script that does not fire before consent.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Coverage, accuracy & freshness

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The headline figures — 650M+ public sources of data and a B2B database with basic or advanced filters — are the scale evidence we have; we found no public information on coverage by country, on DACH coverage, or on any re-verification or refresh cadence. Verification is described in method terms (confidence scores, technical deliverability checks, auto-verified lead data), but the terms disclaim all warranties and treat upgrade fees as non-refundable, so the cost of a bad address stays with the buyer. 1 2 3 4

Report an error

Data sources & lawful basis

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Source categories are named plainly — addresses published on public web pages and addresses generated by pattern analysis from names and affiliations — and legitimate interest comes with a published balancing conclusion, a Legitimate Interest Assessment offered on request, and a robot that respects robots.txt and skips private consumer data. People in the database get a genuine self-service route: a Claim feature to update or delete their record, removal within three months of a request or when the source page drops them. We found no public information on any Article 14 notification practice when people are added, on per-record source traceability, or on EU records being handled differently from US records. 1 3

Report an error

Visitor identification & intent signals

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The pricing page carries a per-plan Signals allowance and the privacy policy retains a Visitor Data category for up to fourteen months, but we found no public information describing what visitor identification exists — company or person, or how any tracking works — nor any statement that a script needs consent under the German telecommunication-telemedia data protection law or how it behaves without it. An unexplained counter and a retention line do not document a capability. 2 3

Report an error

Prospecting workflow & outreach rules

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The outreach machinery is real — saved leads up to thirty million, bulk tasks, sequences with AI writing, email rotation and open tracking, managed mailboxes and warm-up — with filters reaching technographics through TechLookup. But the terms make the customer an independent controller, the compliance help is one sentence about sourcing data transparently, and we found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, opt-outs syncing back to the database, or guidance on cold outreach rules in Germany and the other main EU markets. 1 2 3 4

Report an error

CRM sync, enrichment & export

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Sync to HubSpot, Zoho, Salesforce and Pipedrive, 5,000+ Zapier endpoints, a public API, an MCP server, a Sheets add-on and CSV export make a broad integration surface, with the vendor acting as processor for the enrichment tasks. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, bidirectional update or deletion propagation, or on whether exported records may be kept after cancellation — and the terms reserve the right to modify or discontinue API access at any time with or without notice. 1 2 3 4

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The contracting entity and controller is a Delaware company under Delaware law, softened by an Article 27 representative in Ireland, servers stated to be located in Belgium, a published sub-processor list, and Standard Contractual Clauses plus the UK International Data Transfer Agreement named for transfers out of the EEA. OpenAI nonetheless sits in the AI chain with API data retention of up to thirty days, so a buyer of European professionals' contact data still contracts across the Atlantic. 3 4

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Credit allowances per plan, unlimited users on all plans, prepaid monthly or annual billing, VAT excluded and the refund rules are all stated, with a free tier at 0€. But we found no public information on the paid plan prices, on credit expiry or rollover, or on the price of Credit Packs, Enterprise is a sales conversation, and the captured material gives different figures for the free plan's monthly credits. The annual invoice is not computable from what is public. 1 2 4

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

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.

Do you know more about Hunter? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage hunter.io Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page hunter.io Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy hunter.io Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Terms of service hunter.io Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Security / trust page hunter.io Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap hunter.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap hunter.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Data sources & lawful basis — found from sitemap hunter.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Data sources & lawful basis — found from sitemap hunter.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap hunter.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap hunter.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →