whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Lead Generation

Lusha

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven

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

by Lusha Systems Inc. · www.lusha.com

Compare with Apollo.io → Compare with Cognism → 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 RevOps Manager

Weighted verdict

Owns the CRM and cleans up after every tool sales buys. Wants sync with field mapping and deduplication, re-enrichment that updates rather than duplicates, objections that propagate into synced records, and exit terms that say what the company may keep.

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

Scored by The RevOps Manager

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 RevOps Manager

Headline counts are published — 290M+ contacts, 165M+ emails, 117M+ direct dials, 29M+ companies, 78 fields per record, with 26 buying signals refreshed weekly — but I found no public information on DACH or any per-country coverage, on how contact records are verified, or on a re-verification cadence for anything other than the signals. The terms deliver the platform "AS IS" with no credit-back for inaccurate data, so decay is the buyer's cost, and the vendor's own study puts that decay at 12.6% a year. 1 2 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 RevOps Manager

Sources are named more concretely than most — data brokers, publicly available APIs, an Auto-Complete algorithm scanning public sources, and a Community Program whose members share CRM data, email headers and calendar meeting data about their contacts — with a suppression list honored across the database and a published 2024 request log (1,119 deletions/opt-outs, none denied). But I found no public statement of the legal basis for EU records — legitimate interest is never named — and no Art. 14 notification practice or balancing test anywhere on the pages, while the community sourcing pulls contact data from members' address books without any evidence those contacts were informed. 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 RevOps Manager

"Website Visitor Identification" is named as a capability and buying-intent topics are priced into the tiers (five topics at Starter, twenty-five at Scale, signals refreshed weekly), but I found no public information on how the identification works, whether it stays at company level for EU traffic, or any consent position under TDDDG for whatever script does the tracking. 1 2

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 RevOps Manager

Basic and advanced filters, buying signals as triggers and a vendor-side suppression list honored across the whole database exist, the terms bind use to a defined B2B Purpose with B2C solicitation prohibited, and a do-not-call list appears among the pricing page's compliance items without stated terms. But outreach risk lands squarely on the customer — call-recording consent is "Customer's sole responsibility" — and I found no public information on cold-outreach guidance for German or other EU markets, on phone numbers being checked against national do-not-call registers, or on opt-outs syncing back from outreach into exports. 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 RevOps Manager

Native integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Monday and Zoho, enrichment of existing records ("fill in missing emails, phone numbers, and company details in your CRM"), CSV enrichment, webhooks and an API meant to "keep them current without anyone re-running an export" — and, rare in this category, the terms state plainly that the customer may continue to use the data after termination. What I cannot find is field mapping, deduplication, bidirectional sync, published credit costs per API call, or any automatic propagation of objections and corrections into synced records; when someone objects, the terms make removal the customer's manual job, "without undue delay". 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 RevOps Manager

The control setup is non-EU end to end: Lusha Systems Inc. (Boston) and Lusha Systems Ltd. (Tel Aviv) are joint controllers, data is "stored on Amazon Web Services in the United States of America", the terms authorize storage "in the United States or any other country", and data is shared with recipients in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Israel. Standard Contractual Clauses are named as the transfer safeguard and a full sub-processor list is published, which is worth something, but there is no EU contracting entity, no EU hosting, and support hours follow Israeli time. 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 RevOps Manager

Four tiers are priced publicly with credit allowances — Free $0 with 40 credits per month, Starter $37.45 USD / month billed yearly with 4,800 credits per year, Pro $52.45, Premium $299.95 with 40,800 — and the terms state that unused credits expire at term end, while the pricing page also describes a monthly rollover capped at x2 on some plans. But the real invoice is still not computable: credits are not broken out by data type (email versus phone versus mobile), extra seats are billed at an unstated "prevailing rate", ad hoc credits carry an unstated "additional fee", Scale pricing is a sales conversation, and I found no public information on VAT treatment, per-API-call credit costs, or any refund rule for inaccurate data. 2 4

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

3 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 US by default ⚠ unverified 0/3 pts 3 Report an error
Subprocessors US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified 0/2 pts 3 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 Lusha? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (12)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.lusha.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page www.lusha.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.lusha.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Terms of service www.lusha.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap docs.lusha.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Data sources & lawful basis — found from sitemap www.lusha.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap www.lusha.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap docs.lusha.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap docs.lusha.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap docs.lusha.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap docs.lusha.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap docs.lusha.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →