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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has read "98% accuracy" and "GDPR-compliant data" on every homepage in the category. Reads instead for the refresh cadence, the credit-back rule for a bounced email, what a mobile number costs in credits, and the source the privacy notice admits to.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

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 Skeptic

The homepage counts scale of operations, not market coverage — 650M+ public sources and 1.2B+ leads contacted — and we found no public information on coverage by country, DACH included, or on a stated re-verification cadence. Verification itself is described (confidence scores, deliverability checks), and the privacy policy says profiles are removed within 3 months if they leave their source pages, which is the closest thing to a freshness statement on the captured pages. We found no public information on a bounce or credit-back guarantee. 1 3

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 Skeptic

Sourcing is unusually candid: emails are either collected from pages where they were published or generated by pattern analysis from public sources, with a Legitimate Interest Assessment and DPIA said to exist, their summaries available on request rather than published. Listed people get a self-service claim page to update or delete their record, the crawler is stated to respect robots.txt and skip private consumer data, and balancing is asserted for the professional B2B context. We found no public information on an Article 14 notification practice when people are added, or on per-record source and collection date. 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 Skeptic

We found no public information on identifying the companies behind website visits — no captured page describes a tracking script, reverse-IP matching, or a consent position under the German cookie-and-tracking rule. What is evidenced is email-level engagement tracking (opens, links, custom tracking domain) inside sequences, plus a tiered "Signals" feature and AI "proactive suggestions" with no captured description of what they measure or where it comes from. Neither is website visitor identification. 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 Skeptic

Firmographic filters, saved leads and cold-email sequences sent through Gmail or Outlook are all evidenced, and the terms seat the customer as an independent controller for what they do with the contacts. We found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, on do-not-call register checks, or on guidance for cold outreach rules in any EU market — the closest the pages come is the homepage's line that Hunter helps you comply with data protection regulations. 1 2 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 Skeptic

Sync to HubSpot, Zoho, Salesforce and Pipedrive plus 5,000+ Zapier endpoints, CSV export, and a public API with an MCP server clear the single-CRM bar comfortably. But we found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, or bidirectional propagation of updates and objections, and the API terms reserve the right to modify or discontinue access "with or without notice, for any or no reason". We also found no public information on whether exported contacts may be kept after cancellation. 1 2 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 Skeptic

The contracting entity is Hunter Web Services, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware under Delaware law, with an EU representative in Ireland and a UK representative in Brighton — the textbook non-EU vendor arrangement — even though the servers are stated to be in Belgium. Transfers outside the EEA are named with Standard Contractual Clauses and the International Data Transfer Agreement, a subprocessor list page is linked, and the OpenAI integration is disclosed with a contractual training opt-out and 30-day retention. The entity, controller and governing law remain American, which caps this below any EU-entity setup. 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 Skeptic

Public pieces exist — the free plan at 0€ with 50 credits a month, unlimited users on all plans, add-ons priced "from 10€/month" and "from 5.22€/mo", taxes stated as excluded — but the captured pricing page gives credit allowances for Starter, Growth and Scale without ever stating their euro prices, and we found no public information on credit expiry, credits per data type, or the cost of pay-as-you-go API credits. The captured pages also give different figures for the free plan's credits — 50 credits per month in one place and 600 in the comparison row — and while the terms make upgrades non-refundable, we found no public information on credit-back for inaccurate data. 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 →