Lead Generation
RocketReach
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by RocketReach, LLC · rocketreach.co
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.
RocketReach at a glance
- Vendor
- RocketReach, LLC
- 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
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates RocketReach 0.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. RocketReach is evidenced here as a contact-lookup API — search and retrieval of email addresses and phone numbers across 700M+ professionals and 60M+ companies — judged from two captured API documentation pages. 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
RocketReach is evidenced here as a contact-lookup API — search and retrieval of email addresses and phone numbers across 700M+ professionals and 60M+ companies — judged from two captured API documentation pages. Its one strength is the plumbing: CRM sync and export scored 3–4, the highest marks on this bench, for documented API-key authentication, bulk lookups of 1 to 100 per batch, webhook delivery, rate limits, error codes and an MCP option. Data coverage scored 3 on headline counts alone — no per-country figures, verification method or refresh cadence. Data provenance, visitor identification and sovereignty sit at 0: we found no public information on where contact data originates, its legal basis, or any route for a listed person to object, and the vendor is a United States entity with 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — the DACH Sales Director and Data Protection Officer each called that disqualifying. Prospecting compliance ranged 0–1, a point for bulk lookup into named profile lists set against absent suppression and do-not-contact information. The only pricing signal anywhere is that bulk lookups consume export credits.
Speaks for it
- REST API documented in real detail, with API-key authentication, a rate-limits guide and spelled-out error codes
- Bulk person lookups run up to 100 per batch, with webhook delivery of results instead of polling
- An MCP offering is documented alongside the API, with overview, authentication and tools reference pages
- Lookups accept LinkedIn URL, profile ID, name with company, or email address, which judges read as enrichment of records already held
Held against it
- We found no public information on where the contact data comes from, its legal basis, or how a listed person can object to or remove their record
- Sovereignty attributes are 'no sovereignty attributes on record' for RocketReach, LLC of the United States, and we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or a transfer basis for EU residents' data
- Coverage rests on headline counts of 700M+ professionals and 60M+ companies, with no per-country figures, verification method or refresh cadence
- No suppression lists, do-not-contact handling or outreach guidance for EU markets appear, so the legal risk of outreach sits with the buyer
- The captured pages evidence person and company lookup only, with no public information on website visitor identification or intent signals
Best for
- You hold existing records — LinkedIn URLs, profile IDs, names with companies, or emails — and need a documented API to enrich them
- Your team can integrate via REST and consume bulk lookups of up to 100 per batch delivered by webhook
- You build with MCP tooling and want contact lookup callable from it
Avoid if
- You need EU-market compliance support — suppression lists, do-not-contact screening or outreach guidance — before contacting anyone; the captured pages leave that legal risk with you
- You need website visitor identification or intent signals for account-based plays; the product as evidenced is lookup by already-known identifiers
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Coverage, accuracy & freshness | 1.5 of 5 |
| Data sources & lawful basis | 0 of 5 |
| Visitor identification & intent signals | 0 of 5 |
| Prospecting workflow & outreach rules | 0.5 of 5 |
| CRM sync, enrichment & export | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 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
The only coverage figure is a headline 700M+ professionals and 60M+ companies — great for the pitch deck, useless for planning a DACH campaign. I found no public information on per-country coverage, verification method, refresh cadence, or any bounce guarantee, so connect-rate planning would be a coin flip. 1
The RevOps Manager
Headline counts of 700M+ professionals and 60M+ companies are stated, but we found no public information on per-country coverage for DACH or the EU, on verification method, or on refresh cadence; the claim of high match rates comes with no method behind it. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Headline counts are published — 700 million professionals, 60 million companies — with accuracy asserted in marketing language such as "accurate email addresses" and "high match rates". I found no public information on per-country or DACH coverage, a verification method, a refresh cadence, or a guarantee when a record bounces, and accuracy claims cannot be checked from outside. 1 2
The ABM Marketer
Headline counts of 700M+ professionals and 60M+ companies are the only coverage figures on the captured pages, with no country breakdown and we found no public information on DACH or EU coverage, verification method, or refresh cadence. Match rates are described only as 'high' with no stated method behind them. 1
The DACH Sales Director
The only coverage figure is a headline count of 700M+ professionals and 60M+ companies, and we found no public information on coverage for Germany, Austria or Switzerland, on any verification method, or on how often records are re-verified. Accuracy asserted as "high match rates" with nothing behind it is exactly the claim I cannot take to a Mittelstand customer. 1
The Skeptic
The only coverage evidence is a headline count of 700M+ professionals and 60M+ companies, with no per-country or DACH figures, no verification method and no refresh cadence anywhere in the captured pages. Accuracy appears only as 'accurate email addresses' and 'high match rates', with no stated methodology behind either. 1
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
Everything captured is developer documentation; I found no public information on where the contact data comes from, the legal basis for EU records, or how a listed person can object to their record. For a US vendor selling contact data on EU residents, that silence decides it. 1
The RevOps Manager
The captured pages are API documentation only: we found no public information on where contact data comes from, the legal basis for processing it, or how a listed person can object or get removed. Without any of that, there is nothing to score above the floor. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
For a database of 700 million professionals I found no public information on where the contact data comes from, the legal basis for processing, or a balancing of legitimate interest. There is equally nothing on an Art. 14 notice to the people listed, or a route for them to find, object to and remove their record — every question I must ask before a list is exported is unanswered on these pages. 1 2
The ABM Marketer
Both captured pages are API reference material, and we found no public information on where the contact data comes from, the legal basis for processing it, or how a person in the database could find, object to, or remove their record. 1 2
The DACH Sales Director
We found no public information on where the contact data comes from, on what legal basis it is processed, or how a person in the database could find and object to their record. There is nothing here a German buyer could hang a legitimate-interest assessment on. 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages are API documentation only; we found no public information on where the contact data comes from, on what legal basis it is processed, or how a listed person could find, object to or remove their record. No privacy notice for the people in the database and no legitimate-interest statement appear in the material reviewed. 1 2
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 mentions website visitor identification or intent signals — the product evidenced is person and company lookup, not de-anonymizing site traffic. I found no public information on this capability at all. 1
The RevOps Manager
We found no public information on visitor identification or intent data of any kind; the captured documentation covers person and company contact lookup only. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured documentation describes person and company contact lookups only. I found no public information on website visitor identification, reverse-IP matching, intent topics, or any stated position on consent before a tracking script fires. 1 2
The ABM Marketer
My whole job is knowing which of my 300 accounts is on our site, and we found no public information on company-level visitor identification, website tracking scripts, consent handling, or intent data of any kind. The product as evidenced is person and company lookup through search and an API, not website visitor identification. 1
The DACH Sales Director
We found no public information on visitor identification or intent signals; the captured pages describe person and company lookup by LinkedIn URL, profile ID, name-and-company or email only. Nothing on company-level identification, cookies or consent, so this scores as not evidenced. 1 2
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 workflow evidenced is a bulk lookup endpoint that drops profiles into named lists, and that is where the help ends. I found no public information on filters, suppression or do-not-contact handling, or any guidance on what my SDRs may lawfully do with these contacts in Germany or elsewhere. 2
The RevOps Manager
The API supports list building of a sort — bulk lookup into named profile lists, charged against export credits — but we found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, do-not-call checking, or guidance on cold outreach rules. The legal risk sits entirely with the buyer as far as the captured pages show. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Search and export are well instrumented — lookups by LinkedIn URL, profile ID, name and company, bulk batches of up to 100, results filed into named profile lists — but I found no public information on what the buyer may lawfully do with the contacts. No suppression list, do-not-contact handling, or outreach guidance for the main EU markets appears on these pages, so the legal risk sits entirely with the customer. 1 2
The ABM Marketer
The pages document search and bulk lookup endpoints that consume export credits, and we found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, do-not-call screening, or any guidance on what a buyer may lawfully do with the contacts once exported. The legal risk would sit entirely with me. 1 2
The DACH Sales Director
The pages describe searching and retrieving contact info and bulk lookups that consume export credits, and we found no public information on suppression lists, do-not-call screening, or guidance on cold outreach rules in Germany or any EU market. Under UWG §7 the entire legal risk of the first call sits with the customer. 1 2
The Skeptic
What the pages show is a search API and a bulk lookup that consumes export credits and files results into named profile lists — list building of a sort, but nothing about what the buyer may lawfully do with the contacts. We found no public information on do-not-contact handling, suppression, or outreach guidance for any market. 1 2
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 API is the one genuinely strong point — documented key authentication, batch lookups up to 100 profiles, webhooks instead of polling, rate limits and error codes spelled out, plus an MCP offering. I found no public information on native CRM sync, field mapping, deduplication, or retention of exported contacts after cancellation, and credit costs per call are referenced but not quantified here. 1 2
The RevOps Manager
The API is genuinely documented — bulk lookup up to 100 per batch, webhooks so we are not polling, rate limits, error codes, an MCP option — and lookups consume export credits. But we found no public information on native CRM sync, field mapping, deduplication, re-enrichment of existing records, propagation of objections, or what happens to exported data when the subscription ends, which is the part I get to clean up after. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The export machinery is genuinely documented — RESTful endpoints, API-key authentication, rate limits, batch limits, error codes, webhooks and MCP tooling, with bulk lookups consuming export credits. I found no public information on native CRM sync, field mapping, deduplication, enrichment of existing CRM records, or what happens to exported data and the buyer's access after cancellation. 1 2
The ABM Marketer
The REST API is genuinely documented with key authentication, bulk lookups of up to 100 per batch, webhook delivery, an MCP server and a rate-limits guide, which is a real path to get data into my stack. But we found no public information on native CRM sync, field mapping, enrichment of existing records, or what happens to exported data and my access after cancellation. 1 2
The DACH Sales Director
The API is genuinely documented — API key authentication, bulk lookups of up to 100 per batch, webhook delivery instead of polling, rate limits and error codes — which is real programmatic export with stated limits. We found no public information on native CRM integrations, field mapping or deduplication, on enrichment of existing CRM records, or on whether exported data may be kept after cancellation. 1 2
The Skeptic
The REST API is documented in real detail — API key authentication, bulk person lookups in batches of 1 to 100 with webhooks for results, rate limits, error codes, and an MCP server — and lookups by LinkedIn URL or email read like enrichment of existing records. We found no public information on native CRM sync, field mapping, deduplication, or what happens to exported data and buyer access when the subscription ends. 1 2
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 vendor is a US entity with no sovereignty attributes on record, and I found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, or any legal basis for transferring EU contact data outside the EU. 1
The RevOps Manager
RocketReach, LLC is a United States contracting entity and no sovereignty attributes are on record; we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, or any transfer basis for EU residents' contact data. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is RocketReach, LLC of the United States, serving contact data on 700 million professionals, and the sovereignty review found no attributes on record. I found no public information on hosting location, an EU representative, subprocessors, or a transfer basis for EU residents' personal data — for a product that is itself personal data about people who never chose this vendor, that is disqualifying. 1
The ABM Marketer
The contracting vendor is RocketReach, LLC in the United States, no sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, or any stated transfer basis for EU residents' contact data. For a database of 700M professionals that is a serious gap for a European buyer. 1
The DACH Sales Director
RocketReach, LLC is a United States contracting entity processing a database of 700M+ professionals, and we found no public information on hosting location, an EU representative, subprocessors, or any transfer basis for EU residents' contact data. For my customers that is disqualifying on its own. 1
The Skeptic
RocketReach, LLC is a United States contracting entity and no sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured pages state no hosting location, controller, subprocessor or data-partner list, and no legal basis for any transfer of EU professionals' contact data. For a database of this kind, that silence is itself the finding. 1
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 only pricing-adjacent statement is that the bulk lookup endpoint consumes export credits; I found no public information on tier prices, what a credit buys, credit expiry, or seat costs, so no buyer can compute an annual invoice from these pages. 2
The RevOps Manager
The only pricing signal anywhere in the captured pages is that API calls consume export credits; we found no public prices for tiers, seats, credit costs by data type, credit expiry, or the API's own cost. No buyer can compute an invoice from this. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Billing is confirmed to exist — bulk lookups "consume export credits" and usage can be tracked on the account page — yet I found no public pricing on these pages: no tier costs, no price per credit by data type, no seat or overage terms. A buyer cannot derive even an approximate annual invoice from what is published here. 1 2
The ABM Marketer
The only pricing-adjacent statement anywhere is that bulk lookups 'consume export credits', and we found no public information on tier prices, what a credit costs or whether credits expire, per-seat costs, or API pricing. The annual invoice is not computable from the captured pages. 2
The DACH Sales Director
We found no public prices at all: the pages name export credits and API rate limits but give no price per credit, no expiry or rollover terms, and no seat costs. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual invoice from the captured pages. 1 2
The Skeptic
The only pricing fact in the material is that a bulk lookup consumes 'export credits' and that usage can be checked via an account endpoint. We found no public information on tier prices, what a credit buys per data type, phone or mobile costs, credit expiry, seat costs, minimum term or any refund rule for inaccurate data — the invoice is not computable from these pages. 1 2
Questions about RocketReach
Is RocketReach European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies RocketReach as Rest of world.
Where does RocketReach store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does RocketReach have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to RocketReach?
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: RocketReach 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (docs.rocketreach.co/reference/rocketreach-api, docs.rocketreach.co/reference/bulk-person-lookup-person-lookup-api). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (docs.rocketreach.co/reference/rocketreach-api, docs.rocketreach.co/reference/bulk-person-lookup-person-lookup-api). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 1 integrations 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
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap docs.rocketreach.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap docs.rocketreach.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →