Lead Generation
Lead411
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Lead411, Inc. · www.lead411.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.
Lead411 at a glance
- Vendor
- Lead411, Inc.
- 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
- Starting price
- “Access 97% verified email addresses and direct phone numbers. Starting at $49/month” (vendor’s words) source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Lead411 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Lead411, Inc. 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
Lead411, Inc. sells B2B contact data and prospecting tooling, and the bench's scoring favors its plumbing over its compliance paperwork. CRM sync and export scores run 4 to 5, on more than 25 CRM integrations — Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Zoho and Outreach named — an automatic CRM enrichment module and a developer API; data coverage sits at a flat 4, with verification documented in depth (SMTP, human checks, email open-validation, a 96% accuracy rating on human-verified emails, re-verification at least every 90 days), though the captured pages differ on that cadence and on which plans include unlimited export. The weakest columns are sovereignty, a flat 0 with no sovereignty attributes on record and no public information on hosting, controller, subprocessors or transfer basis, and pricing transparency at 0 to 1: we found no public tier prices beyond a 7-day free trial with up to 50 leads. Visitor identification is the genuine split, 1 to 4 — judges crediting the intent tooling and Bombora signals score high; judges weighing consent and legal basis score contact-level identification claims near the floor.
Speaks for it
- Verification is documented in depth: SMTP, human checks and email open-validation, with the database re-verified at least every 90 days
- More than 25 CRM integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Zoho and Outreach named, plus a CRM Enhancer and a developer API
- Deep search filters on industry, company size, technologies used, location and job title, plus hiring, funding and executive-change triggers
- Bombora is named openly as the third-party intent source alongside native intent signals
- A 7-day free trial with up to 50 B2B leads is public
Held against it
- No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, the controller, subprocessors or any transfer basis
- No public tier prices, credit costs, seat pricing or minimum terms beyond the 7-day trial
- No legal basis stated for EU records, no privacy notice for the people in the database, and no route for a listed person to object or be removed
- No do-not-contact or suppression list, no do-not-call register checks, and no country-aware guidance for EU outreach
- The captured pages give different figures for unlimited export ('most plans' versus 'select plans') and for the re-verification cadence
Best for
- You need verified contact data pushed automatically into Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive or Zoho and can handle field mapping and deduplication yourself
- Your team builds target lists from technographic and trigger filters — hiring, funding, executive changes — and manages outreach compliance in-house
- You want to test data quality before committing, using the 7-day free trial with up to 50 B2B leads
Avoid if
- You need documented EU sovereignty — an EU contracting entity, hosting location or a stated transfer basis — before procurement
- Your DPO requires a stated lawful basis, a privacy notice for the people in the database and objection routes before any list is exported
- You must estimate an annual cost from public prices without a sales conversation
- Your compliance review requires a consent position behind any website tracking before you deploy a visitor-identification script
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Coverage, accuracy & freshness | 2 of 5 |
| Data sources & lawful basis | 1 of 5 |
| Visitor identification & intent signals | 1 of 5 |
| Prospecting workflow & outreach rules | 2 of 5 |
| CRM sync, enrichment & export | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 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
Verification and refresh are documented better than most — a 96% accuracy rating on human-verified emails, the whole database re-verified at least every 90 days with emails re-verified every 3-6 months, SMTP plus human plus open-validation checks, and double-verified direct dials with phone-to-employer matching. But coverage is only a "millions of verified emails, direct dials, and company profiles" headline plus a generic global-search line; we found no public information on DACH or per-country coverage, per-record last-verified dates visible to the user, or a bounce guarantee and credit-back terms that make a bad record the vendor's cost. 1 2 5
The RevOps Manager
Headline counts are the usual "millions of verified emails, direct dials and company profiles", with coverage outside the US described only as global search — nothing broken out per country and nothing specific to Germany, Austria or Switzerland. Verification is documented better than most (SMTP, human checks, email-open validation, triple-verified claims) and re-verification is stated at least every 90 days, though the captured pages give different figures for the interval, and we found no public information on bounce guarantees or credit-back terms. That lands it above a bare record count but short of the per-market coverage a DACH rollout needs. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
Re-verification is documented better than most: emails re-verified every 3 to 6 months, the whole database at least every 90 days, via SMTP, human verification and open-validation — though the captured pages give different figures for tracked technologies (30,000+ and 60K+) and for accuracy percentages. Coverage itself is stated only as 'millions' of contacts globally; I found no public information on per-country or DACH coverage, official-register sourcing, or a bounce guarantee with stated terms. 1 2 5
The ABM Marketer
Verification and refresh are genuinely documented — the entire database re-verified at least every 90 days, emails every three to six months, via SMTP, human checks and a send-and-open method — which is more than most vendors publish. But coverage stays at the headline level of "millions" plus a generic search-globically claim: I found no per-country figures and nothing on DACH specifically, no last-verified dates visible to the user, and no bounce or credit-back guarantee, so I cannot size a German target list from public pages. 1 2 5
The DACH Sales Director
Coverage is sold as "millions of verified emails, direct dials, and company profiles" searchable "globally", and we found no public information breaking that down for Germany, Austria, Switzerland or any single market — for a Mittelstand pipeline that is close to a blank page. Verification is described in real depth (SMTP plus human and open-message validation, direct dials double-verified), but the captured pages give different figures for re-verification cadence — at least every 90 days, every three to six months, and continuously in real time — so I cannot settle on one. We found no public information on a bounce guarantee or credit-back terms for inaccurate records. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
Verification is the one thing documented with substance — SMTP, human verification and email open-validation, catchalls via BounceBan, and a stated re-verification cycle, though the captured pages give different figures for it (at least every 90 days versus every 3-6 months). Coverage itself stops at 'millions' of contacts and a global search: we found no per-country or DACH figures, no register-sourced company data, and no bounce or credit-back terms that would make inaccuracy the vendor's cost. 1 2 5
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 described only in general terms — billions of data points from "public resources and social platforms," with licensed third-party data playing a secondary confirmatory role — and catchall emails are verified with a named tool, BounceBan. We found no public information on the legal basis for processing EU contact data, on any privacy notice or notification for the people in the database, or on a route for a listed person to object to or remove their record. 2
The RevOps Manager
Sources are described only in general terms — public resources, social platforms, and licensed third-party data used as secondary confirmation. We found no public information on the legal basis for processing EU records, no privacy notice aimed at the people in the database, and no self-service way for a listed contact to find, object to or remove their record. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Sources are named only in general terms — 'public resources and social platforms' plus licensed third parties — with no legal basis stated for EU records, no balancing, no notice to the people in the database and no route for them to object or be removed. I found no public information on an Art. 14 notification practice or a dedicated privacy notice for listed people, so the buyer who exports a list inherits a basis the vendor never states. 2
The ABM Marketer
Sources appear only in general terms — public resources and social platforms, plus unnamed licensed third parties — and I found no public information on the legal basis for EU records, no privacy notice addressed to the people in the database, and no route for them to object or be removed. Mailing into Germany, I would have no lawful-basis story to hand a DPO. 2
The DACH Sales Director
The sources page names "public resources and social platforms" and licensed third-party data in general terms, which tells me nothing about the legal basis for processing German contacts. We found no public information on a legitimate-interest position, on a privacy notice for the people in the database, or on any route for a listed person to find, object to, or remove their record — in my market that conversation starts with the customer's DPO before the first list is built. 2
The Skeptic
Sources are described in general terms — public resources, social platforms and licensed third parties — with a proprietary algorithm and a human verification team behind the matching. But we found no public information on the legal basis for EU records, no privacy notice addressed to the people in the database, and no route for a listed person to object to or remove their record. 2 1
Visitor identification & intent signals
panel disagrees
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
The visitor-identification tool is claimed to discover "which companies—and even which contacts—are visiting your website," and Bombora is named as a third-party intent source alongside native intent, which is the one bright spot. We found no public information on how the tracking works, whether it sets cookies, or any position on consent under the German telecommunications-data law — contact-level identification of website visitors with no legal-basis statement anywhere is exactly what my DPO would kill on sight. 1 3
The RevOps Manager
The product page advertises discovering "which companies—and even which contacts—are visiting your website", which reads as contact-level identification, and we found no public information on consent requirements for the tracking script, any cookieless mode, or how identification works at all. Intent data exists natively and through a named third party, Bombora, but the consent basis behind it is undocumented. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The page markets identifying 'even which contacts' are visiting a website — person-level identification — with no stated legal basis, no position on consent under §25 TDDDG, and nothing on cookieless operation or consent-platform integration. The one point of transparency is that Bombora is named as a third-party intent source. 3 1
The ABM Marketer
The ABM bones are there: a visitor tool that names the companies — and claims even the contacts — visiting the site, growth-intent scoring, real-time notifications for hiring, funding and executive changes, and Bombora named as the third-party intent source, which I value. It sits here because I found no public information on how the tracking actually works, no position on consent under the German cookie rule, no cookieless option, and the contact-level identification claim comes with nothing behind it. 1 3
The DACH Sales Director
The visitor-identification tool is marketed as discovering "which companies—and even which contacts—are visiting your website", i.e. contact-level identification of website visitors, and we found no public information on how the tracking works, on consent under the TDDDG, or on the legal basis for the identified contacts. Naming Bombora openly as the third-party intent source is more than many US tools publish, but without any stated consent position the script will not survive a German DPO review. 1 3
The Skeptic
The visitor product's own page advertises identifying 'which companies—and even which contacts—are visiting your website', i.e. contact-level identification, and we found no public information on a consent or TDDDG statement, a cookieless or consent-mode option, or any legal basis. Third-party intent from Bombora is at least named alongside the native growth-intent signals, but that does nothing for the identification question. 3 1 4
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
The search side is genuinely good for my team — filters on industry, company size, location, job title and technologies used, plus hiring, funding and executive-change triggers and a currently-hiring filter that surfaces real buyers. But on everything that keeps an SDR inside the rules, we found no public information: nothing on a do-not-contact or suppression list, no guidance on cold-email and cold-call consent rules in the main EU markets, and no country-aware flagging, so the legal risk sits entirely with the customer. 1
The RevOps Manager
Search is genuinely strong — technographic, location and job-title filters plus hiring, funding and executive-change triggers with real-time alerts, and unlimited exports on select plans. What we found no public information on is everything my team would carry the legal risk for: do-not-contact handling, suppression lists, checking numbers against do-not-call registers, and country-specific outreach rules for Germany and the wider EU. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Filters are advanced — industry, company size, technologies, location, job title, hiring and growth triggers — and exports are unlimited on most plans. I found no public information on a do-not-contact or suppression list, country-aware handling such as flagging German contacts, do-not-call register checks, or any guidance on lawful cold outreach, so the UWG and GDPR risk sits entirely with the customer. 1 5
The ABM Marketer
Filtering is strong — industry, size, location, job title, technologies used, hiring status, with trigger alerts — but the emphasis runs the other way on risk: unlimited search and export on most plans. I found no public information on a global suppression or do-not-contact list, do-not-call register checks, or any guidance on cold-outreach rules in the main EU markets, so the legal exposure sits entirely with me. 1
The DACH Sales Director
The search side is genuinely strong for my team — filters on industry, company size, technologies used, location and job title, plus hiring and funding triggers — but on the compliance side we found no public information on a do-not-contact or suppression list, on cold-outreach guidance for the main EU markets, or on any country-aware flagging of German contacts where UWG §7 requires consent before a call or email. As far as the captured pages show, the legal risk sits entirely with the customer. 1 5
The Skeptic
The filters run deep — technographics, hiring, funding and executive-change triggers, unlimited search and export on some plans — and that is where the story ends. We found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, guidance on cold-outreach rules in the main EU markets, phone screening against do-not-call registers, or any country-aware handling, so the buyer is left to work out the lawful use alone. 1 5
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
The integration story is credible — more than 25 CRM integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Zoho, Pipedrive and Outreach.io named, an enrichment flow that "enrich and update your CRM automatically," a developer-friendly lead-enrichment API, and unlimited searches and exports on most plans with team accounts. We found no public information on field mapping or deduplication, on API rate limits or per-call credit costs, on update and deletion propagation, or on what the customer may keep and for how long after cancellation. 1 4 5
The RevOps Manager
More than 25 CRM integrations are claimed with named support for Salesforce, HubSpot, Zoho and Pipedrive, automatic enrichment and update of existing CRM records through the CRM Enhancer, and a developer API — the bones of what I need. But we found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, sync direction or API limits, and we found no public information on which data we may keep after cancellation; for a tool that writes into my CRM, that silence is the whole story. 1 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
Twenty-five-plus CRM integrations including Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Zoho and Outreach, a module that enriches and updates the CRM automatically, and an API are all evidenced. I found no public information on field mapping or deduplication, documented API limits, propagation of objections or deletions into synced records, or retention rights after cancellation. 1 5
The ABM Marketer
More than 25 CRM integrations including Salesforce, HubSpot and Zoho, automatic enrichment and updating of CRM records, a developer API, and unlimited exports on most plans — the pipeline into my reps' systems clearly exists. But I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API rate limits or credit costs per call, or on what happens to exported data and my access to it when the subscription ends. 1 4 5
The DACH Sales Director
More than 25 CRM integrations including Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive and Zoho, a CRM Enhancer, and an enrichment API are all named, and exports are described as unlimited on select plans — that covers the core of getting data into where sales works. We found no public information on field mapping and deduplication, on API limits or per-call credit costs, or on what happens to exported contacts and the buyer's access to them when the subscription ends. 1 4 5
The Skeptic
Twenty-five-plus CRM integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Zoho and others, a CRM Enhancer for existing records, and a 'developer-friendly' API are claimed on the pages. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API limits or credit costs per call, or on whether exported data may be kept after cancellation — what is evidenced is enrichment pushed into the CRM, with no stated propagation of updates, objections or deletions. 1 4 5
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
Nothing is on record here: the vendor presents a US-market footprint (a US toll-free support line), and hosting location, contracting and controller details, subprocessors and data partners are unstated in everything we captured, with no word on where EU residents' contact data is held or on what transfer basis. For a database full of people who never chose this vendor, we found no public information on EU hosting, an EU entity, certification, or a data-processing agreement covering exported records. 1 5
The RevOps Manager
The contracting entity appears US-based, the only support line published is a US toll-free number, and we found no public information on hosting location, the controller, subprocessors, a data processing agreement or any transfer mechanism for EU residents' data. No sovereignty attributes were on record for this vendor at all. 1 5
The Data Protection Officer
Lead411, Inc. is a US company and no sovereignty attributes are on record; I found no public information on hosting location, an EU contracting entity or representative, subprocessors, or any transfer basis for EU residents' data. For a product that is itself personal data about people who never chose the vendor, nothing in the chain is evidenced as European. 1 5
The ABM Marketer
There is no published sovereignty information at all: a US-styled Inc. vendor with a US toll-free support line, and I found no public information on hosting location, an EU contracting entity or representative, subprocessors, or any transfer basis for EU residents' contact data. For a product whose substance is personal data about people who never chose the vendor, that silence decides it. 5
The DACH Sales Director
The contracting entity is Lead411, Inc. with a US toll-free support line, and we found no public information on where the database of EU residents' contact data is hosted, on the controller, on any subprocessor or data-partner list, or on a transfer basis for non-EU processing. For a product whose entire value is personal data about people who never chose the vendor, this is the floor. 1 5
The Skeptic
The vendor on record is Lead411, Inc. with a US toll-free support line, and no sovereignty attributes could be established: we found no public information on where the database is hosted, the contracting controller for EU buyers, subprocessors, data partners, or any transfer basis. For a product marketed as global contact data — EU residents included — that is the whole picture public pages give. 1 5
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-related facts we found are the trial terms — a 7-day free trial with up to 50 B2B leads — and "unlimited search and export capabilities on select plans," which is a plan feature, not a price. We found no public information on any tier price, what a credit buys per data type, credit expiry, extra-seat costs, visitor-identification tiers or the API, so a buyer cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from the public pages. 1 5
The RevOps Manager
The captured pages show no prices of any kind — no tier costs, no per-credit charges for emails, direct dials or mobile numbers, no seat pricing, no credit expiry, and no minimum term or VAT treatment. The only pricing-adjacent facts are a 7-day free trial with 50 leads and a claim of unlimited search on select plans, with those plans unpriced, so the annual invoice is not computable from anything public. 1 5
The Data Protection Officer
The only quantified offer is the free trial — 7 days, up to 50 leads. I found no public prices for any plan, credit costs by data type, seat costs, expiry terms or VAT treatment, so a real annual cost is not computable from public pages. 1 5
The ABM Marketer
The only public numbers are a 7-day free trial with up to 50 leads and the promise of unlimited search and export on select plans; I found no public information on tier prices, credit costs per data type, per-seat pricing, credit expiry or contract minimums. An annual invoice cannot be computed from these pages — every number that matters is a sales conversation. 1 5
The DACH Sales Director
The only pricing fact I can find publicly is a seven-day free trial with 50 leads; we found no public information on tier prices, on what a credit or an export costs, on additional seats, or on minimum term and VAT treatment, so the annual invoice cannot even be estimated from the captured pages. "Unlimited" plans are advertised for select plans, and the select part is entirely unpriced. 1 5
The Skeptic
Not one figure survives the capture: the pages mention plans and a 7-day trial with 50 leads, and the captured pages give different scopes for unlimited export ('most plans' versus 'select plans'). We found no public information on tier prices, what a credit buys or whether credits exist, seat costs, credit expiry, or API pricing — the invoice is unknowable before a sales conversation. 1 5
Questions about Lead411
Is Lead411 European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Lead411 is based.
Where does Lead411 store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Lead411 have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Lead411?
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: Lead411 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.
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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 (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.lead411.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Data sources & lawful basis — found from sitemap www.lead411.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap www.lead411.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap www.lead411.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap www.lead411.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →