Lead Generation
PhantomBuster
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by PhantomBuster SAS · www.phantombuster.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.
PhantomBuster at a glance
- Vendor
- PhantomBuster SAS
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates PhantomBuster 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. PhantomBuster is a lead-generation automation layer, not a contact database: Phantoms pull live data through your own LinkedIn session from 15+ platforms and deliver it to HubSpot, Salesforce, CSV or Google Sheets. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
PhantomBuster is a lead-generation automation layer, not a contact database: Phantoms pull live data through your own LinkedIn session from 15+ platforms and deliver it to HubSpot, Salesforce, CSV or Google Sheets. Strongest is CRM sync and export, scored 4 to 6 — HubSpot and Salesforce enrichers with field mapping, custom fields, create-or-update behaviour, chained launches on a configurable schedule, and a refresher flagging 'No longer at company' contacts. Weakest is visitor identification at 0 to 1: the Profile Visitor visits prospects' LinkedIn profiles so you appear in their notifications, and we found no public information on identifying companies behind website visits. Data provenance scores hold at 2, resting on the phrase 'GDPR and platform-compliant'. Prospecting compliance spans 1 to 3 — the low score weighs the recommended Bright Data proxies, the high one the 'only data you have access to' sourcing limit. Sovereignty scores 4 to 5 on a French contracting entity with main sites on Amazon Web Services EMEA in Luxembourg, with no public information found on subprocessors. Pricing: a free trial and one slot per Phantom.
Speaks for it
- Native HubSpot and Salesforce enrichers with field mapping, custom fields and create-or-update of existing records
- A contact refresher marks outdated contacts 'No longer at company', with chained launches on a configurable schedule for continuous refresh
- Live extraction through your own LinkedIn session answers freshness at scrape time rather than through a database refresh cadence
- Exports run to CSV, JSON and Google Sheets as well as direct CRM sync
- A French société par actions simplifiée in Paris with main sites hosted by Amazon Web Services EMEA in Luxembourg
Held against it
- We found no public information on identifying companies behind website visits — the Profile Visitor is an outbound warm-up tool
- Compliance rests on the phrase 'GDPR and platform-compliant', with no public information on a legal basis or an opt-out route for the people scraped
- Outreach 'safe parameters' read as platform rate limits — recommended caps of 80 profiles a day — with no public information on suppression lists or country-aware flags
- We found no public information on coverage figures by country, verification methods, or a bounce or credit-back guarantee
- We found no public information on subprocessors, a data-processing agreement, or where the scraped personal data itself is processed
Best for
- You run HubSpot or Salesforce and want scraped LinkedIn data mapped to specific objects, with custom fields and create-or-update on a schedule
- Your team's priority is contact hygiene — flagging contacts no longer at their company and refreshing records continuously
- You already hold LinkedIn or Sales Navigator access and want live extraction through your own session rather than a bought database
- You want no-code, cloud-run automations that chain into repeated launches
Avoid if
- You need to identify the companies visiting your own website or measure intent — the Profile Visitor warms outbound prospects instead
- You must verify coverage counts, data accuracy or a bounce guarantee before committing spend
- Your compliance review requires a stated legal basis, a notice to the people scraped, or a data-processing agreement
- You need suppression lists or country-aware do-not-contact handling before any German-market outreach
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Coverage, accuracy & freshness | 1.5 of 5 |
| Data sources & lawful basis | 1 of 5 |
| Visitor identification & intent signals | 0.5 of 5 |
| Prospecting workflow & outreach rules | 1 of 5 |
| CRM sync, enrichment & export | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 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
Coverage is stated in platforms, not people — public data sourced from 15+ platforms — with no per-country or DACH numbers, no record counts, and no accuracy figures. The freshness story is real ("live data directly from LinkedIn profiles in real time. You're not pulling from an outdated database"), but we found no public information on email verification, a refresh cadence, or any bounce guarantee, so I can't judge connect rate before buying. 4 5 6
The RevOps Manager
The pitch is live extraction rather than a maintained database — data pulled in real time straight from LinkedIn profiles, plus a refresher that updates outdated contacts — and we found no public information on coverage figures for DACH or anywhere else, on verification methods, or on credit-back terms for inaccurate data. Output fields include firmographics like industry and company name, but there is nothing here the buyer can hold the vendor to. 5 3 6
The Data Protection Officer
Extraction is described as live and real-time from LinkedIn and other platforms, so freshness is handled by design, with 51 output fields including company industry and name; we found no public information on coverage by country or region, on any verification method for the extracted contact data, or on a bounce or credit-back guarantee, and the captured pages give no record counts at all. 3 5 6
The ABM Marketer
The vendor's own compliance page says lists are built only from data you have access to, with no bought third-party databases, so there is no coverage count, verification method, refresh cadence or DACH-specific coverage to evaluate — freshness rests entirely on the 'live data directly from LinkedIn profiles in real time' claim. For my named-account list, coverage is whatever my own searches on LinkedIn and Google Maps return. 5 6 4
The DACH Sales Director
PhantomBuster is an automation layer, not a database: data is pulled live from LinkedIn and Google Maps through your own session, and we found no public information on coverage figures for any market — let alone Germany, Austria or Switzerland — no verification method and no refresh cadence beyond the "live data in real time" claim. Live extraction is a freshness story, not a coverage story, and there is no register-based company data and no accuracy accountability anywhere in the captured pages. 4 5 6
The Skeptic
There is no database to cover — data is pulled live through the customer's own LinkedIn session and from "15+ platforms", so freshness is answered at scrape time rather than by a refresh cadence. But the captured pages are silent on coverage by country or region, on any verification method, and I found no public information on a bounce or credit-back guarantee. 4 5 6
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 source model is disclosed plainly — real-time lead data pulled through your own LinkedIn session, with no bought databases from third-party providers — which is more sourcing detail than most vendors publish. But the legal basis is a bare "GDPR and platform-compliant" with no legitimate-interest statement or balancing, and we found no public information on any notice to the people scraped or a route for them to object or be removed. 5 6
The RevOps Manager
Sources are described only in general terms — public data from 15+ platforms, pulled through your own LinkedIn session — with GDPR compliance asserted in a single line and nothing behind it. We found no public information on the legal basis or a balancing test, on a notice to the people whose profiles are scraped and visited, or on any opt-out and removal route for them. 6 5
The Data Protection Officer
The compliance page asserts "GDPR and platform-compliant" and says lists are built only from data the customer has access to, with no bought third-party databases — a general description of sources, but we found no public information on the legal basis claimed for processing the people scraped from LinkedIn via the customer's session cookie, on any Article 14 notification to them, or on any route for a listed person to object to or remove their record. 5 6
The ABM Marketer
Sources appear only in general terms — public data from 15+ platforms pulled through your own LinkedIn session — with no stated legal basis, no balancing, and no privacy notice or self-service route for the people whose profiles are visited and scraped. 'GDPR and platform-compliant' is asserted with nothing behind it on the captured pages. 6 5
The DACH Sales Director
The data-compliance page says lists are built only from data you have access to via your own LinkedIn session, with "no bought databases from third-party providers" and "fresh, public data sourced responsibly and transparently from 15+ platforms" — general source terms, but legitimate interest is never named and "GDPR and platform-compliant" is asserted without explanation. We found no public information on an Article 14 notice to the people scraped, a privacy notice for the people in the data, or any route for a listed person to object. 5 6
The Skeptic
The data-compliance page is specific on one point — lists built only from data you already have access to via your own session, "no bought databases from third-party providers" — and then rests entirely on the bare phrase "GDPR and platform-compliant". I found no public information on legitimate interest or a balancing test, on notifying the people scraped, or on any opt-out or removal route for a person whose profile has been exported. 6
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
Nothing on the captured pages identifies companies visiting my website or scores buying intent: the LinkedIn Profile Visitor is an outbound tool that visits prospects' profiles to warm them up, not a visitor-identification product. The single mention of intent data appears in CRM-enricher copy with no stated source, and there is no published position on consent or on the German rule for tracking scripts. 5 7
The RevOps Manager
We found no website visitor identification here: the Profile Visitor is outbound — it visits LinkedIn profiles so you appear in prospects' view notifications before outreach — not identification of companies visiting your own site. The word intent appears once in a CRM-enricher blurb with no named source or method, and we found no public information on consent handling or a TDDDG position. 5 7
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages show no website-visitor or reverse-IP identification; the closest capability is person-level extraction from LinkedIn profiles through the customer's own session, with no statement of legal basis, and the word "intent" appears once in CRM-enrichment marketing with no named source — we found no public information on any consent-mode behaviour or a TDDDG position for any tracking script. 5 7
The ABM Marketer
This is the deal-breaker for me: I found no public information on identifying the companies behind visits to my own website — the 'Visitor' in the product name means the automation visits my prospects' LinkedIn profiles to appear in their notifications, not that prospects visiting me get identified. The only intent reference is a passing mention of intent data in the CRM enricher copy, with no source named and no alerting to account owners described. 5 7
The DACH Sales Director
There is no website visitor identification or intent product on the captured pages: the "visitor" here is an outbound tool that visits prospects' LinkedIn profiles so you appear in their notifications before outreach, processing person-level data of LinkedIn users with no legal-basis statement. The word "intent" appears once in CRM-enricher marketing copy with no source named, and we found no public information on any website tracking script, consent handling or match rates. 5 7
The Skeptic
The captured pages describe the reverse of visitor identification: the automation visits prospects' LinkedIn profiles so the seller appears in their notifications before outreach. A passing phrase about migrating "intent data" into the CRM names no source or method, and I found no public information on identifying companies behind website visits, on consent for a tracking script, or on any consent-mode option. 5 7
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
Outreach automation is the product — extract Sales Navigator contacts, auto-connect, send follow-ups — and the compliance posture is "GDPR and platform-compliant" plus controls and limits that read as LinkedIn rate-limit and account-safety protection, not legal guardrails. We found no public information on suppression lists, do-not-call checking, or country-aware flags for German contacts, so the UWG risk sits entirely with my reps. 5 6
The RevOps Manager
Outreach is automated — auto-connect and follow-ups from Sales Navigator — but the safety story is platform limits, not law: recommended caps of 80 profiles a day, smart distribution, and multiple LinkedIn accounts to scale safely. We found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, country-aware flagging for German contacts, do-not-call checks, or cold-outreach guidance for EU markets; the positioning is only that you build lists from data you already have access to. 6 5
The Data Protection Officer
The published controls and daily limits are framed around keeping accounts within platform rate limits rather than what the buyer may lawfully do with the contacts, and an auto-connect and follow-up outreach phantom is offered with no consent checking described; we found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, do-not-call screening, or country-specific outreach rules beyond the bare compliance claim. 5 6
The ABM Marketer
Search is LinkedIn's own search exported to lists, and outreach is auto-connect plus automated follow-ups, with the compliance story limited to 'controls and limits that keep your activity within safe parameters' — that reads as platform rate-limit safety, not UWG or do-not-call handling. I found no public information on suppression lists, country-aware flags or opt-outs synced back, and the pages recommend ISP proxies from Bright Data for scaling the scraping. 6 4
The DACH Sales Director
The pages sell outreach automation — auto-connect and follow-ups from Sales Navigator — while every "safe parameters" claim is about platform rate limits and account safety, not about what a buyer may lawfully send. We found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, on country-aware flagging of German contacts, or on any guidance for the consent rules behind cold calls and cold emails in the main EU markets. 5 6
The Skeptic
The product automates the outreach itself — auto-connect and follow-ups to acceptances — while the only compliance language is "GDPR and platform-compliant" plus controls that keep activity "within safe parameters", which in context read as LinkedIn rate-limit safety, not law. I found no public information on cold-outreach rules in any EU market, on a suppression or do-not-contact list, or on country-aware flagging of contacts. 5 6
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
This is the strongest part: HubSpot and Salesforce enrichers with field mapping, custom fields, create-or-update, chained launches for continuous refresh, and a contact refresher that flags people as no longer at company — exactly the record hygiene I run on. We found no public information on a documented API with stated limits, on deduplication, or on what happens to exported data and my access when the subscription ends. 3 5 7 8
The RevOps Manager
The strongest part of the evidence: Salesforce and HubSpot enrichers with mapping to specific objects and custom fields, a create-new-or-update-existing choice so re-enrichment updates rather than duplicates, a refresher that marks an outdated contact as no longer at company and creates the enriched replacement, and chained re-launches on a configurable schedule. We found no public information on deduplication tooling, a documented API with stated limits, propagation of objections or deletions into synced records, or — what I look for first — which data we may keep when the subscription ends. 8 7 3
The Data Protection Officer
Enrichers for HubSpot and Salesforce create or update records with field mapping and custom fields, chaining keeps CRM data continuously refreshed and flags contacts no longer at their company, and export runs to CSV, Google Sheets or the CRM; we found no public information on a documented API with stated limits, on how objections or deletions propagate into synced records, or on whether exported data may be kept after cancellation. 3 5 7 8
The ABM Marketer
This is where the tool earns its keep: automations create or update HubSpot and Salesforce records, map data to Salesforce objects with custom fields, flag contacts as 'No longer at company', and can re-run on a schedule through chaining. But it is a one-way push — I found no public information on deduplication, a documented API with limits, objection or deletion propagating back, or what exported data may be kept after cancellation. 7 8 3
The DACH Sales Director
The strongest evidence in the file: native HubSpot and Salesforce enrichers with field mapping and custom fields, create-or-update of existing records, a Contact Data Refresher that marks contacts as "No longer at company", chained repeated launches for continuous updates, and CSV, JSON and Google Sheets export. We found no public information on a documented API with stated limits, on objections or deletions being propagated into synced records, or on what happens to exported data and buyer access when the subscription ends. 3 7 8
The Skeptic
The strongest part of the evidence: native enrichers for HubSpot and Salesforce with field mapping, custom fields, create-or-update of existing records, and a refresher that marks stale contacts "No longer at company" on a configurable launch schedule. I found no public information on a documented API with limits, on propagating updates or objections back out of the CRM, or on what happens to exported data after cancellation. 3 5 7 8
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
The contracting entity is The Phantom Company, a French société par actions simplifiée registered in Paris, and the main sites run on Amazon Web Services EMEA in Luxembourg — a European front door. But we found no public information on data-residency commitments, a subprocessor or data-partner list, or a data-processing agreement, and the academy site runs on a Canadian provider. 2
The RevOps Manager
The legal notice names The Phantom Company, a French société par actions simplifiée registered in Paris, with the main sites hosted by Amazon Web Services EMEA in Luxembourg — an EU contracting entity with named EU-located hosting. The careers site runs on a Swedish provider and the academy on a Canadian one, and we found no public information on the controller, a subprocessor and data-partner list, a data processing agreement, or where the scraped personal data itself resides. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor's legal notice names a Paris-registered French company and hosts the main service with Amazon Web Services EMEA in Luxembourg, which is a European start, but the independently sourced sovereignty record could not confirm jurisdiction or residency, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list, the controller role, a data-processing agreement, or the safeguard for the Canada-hosted academy subdomain in the chain. 2
The ABM Marketer
The contracting entity is a French simplified joint-stock company in Paris and the main product sites run through AWS's Luxembourg entity, which is a genuinely European posture. However, no subprocessor or data-partner list is published, the academy site sits with a Canadian provider, and scraping is recommended to run through third-party proxies, so we found no public information on where the scraped lead data itself is processed. 2 4
The DACH Sales Director
The contracting entity is The Phantom Company, a société par actions simplifiée registered in Paris, and the main sites are hosted by Amazon Web Services EMEA in Luxembourg — a genuinely European footing, which is rare in this category. But the captured hosting facts describe the vendor's own websites rather than where the scraped personal data is processed; we found no public information on a subprocessor list or a data processing agreement, and the recommended proxy partner Bright Data sits outside the EU with no safeguard explained. 2 4
The Skeptic
The legal notice puts the contracting entity in Paris — The Phantom Company, a French société par actions simplifiée — and the main sites on Amazon Web Services EMEA in Luxembourg, which is a genuinely European posture. It stops there: I found no public information on subprocessors, a data-processing agreement, or where the scraped personal data itself is processed, and the academy site runs on a Canadian provider with no safeguard named. 2
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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 public pages show a free trial and that the LinkedIn Profile Visitor uses one slot, and that is the entire pricing story — no tier prices, no cost per slot or per seat, no expiry or overage terms. I cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from what is published. 3 4 5
The RevOps Manager
We found no public prices beyond a free trial and the fact that each Phantom occupies one slot — no tier prices, no credit or seat costs, no expiry or VAT treatment. The annual invoice is not computable from what is public. 5 7 3
The Data Protection Officer
The only pricing-adjacent facts captured are a free trial and the statement that the phantom consumes one slot; we found no public information on tier prices, the monetary cost of a slot or credit, seat pricing, credit expiry or rollover, minimum terms, or VAT treatment — the real annual cost cannot be computed from these pages. 5 7
The ABM Marketer
Only a free trial is offered publicly; the pages show that each automation costs '1 slot' but no tier prices, seat costs, credit terms or expiry rules appear in what was captured. An annual invoice is not computable from public information. 5 7 4
The DACH Sales Director
The only pricing facts captured are a free trial and that the LinkedIn Profile Visitor costs "1 slot" — we found no public information on tier prices, what a slot allowance costs, seat pricing, expiry terms or VAT treatment. No annual invoice is computable from the public pages; everything beyond the trial is a sales conversation. 4 5 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about PhantomBuster
Is PhantomBuster European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where PhantomBuster is based.
Where does PhantomBuster store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does PhantomBuster have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to PhantomBuster?
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: PhantomBuster alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 15 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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
- 1 support 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.phantombuster.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage phantombuster.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap phantombuster.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap phantombuster.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap phantombuster.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap phantombuster.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap phantombuster.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap phantombuster.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →