Lead Generation
SalesIntel
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 6 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SalesIntel, Inc. · www.salesintel.io
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.
SalesIntel at a glance
- Vendor
- SalesIntel, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Outside the EU by default source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates SalesIntel 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. SalesIntel, a lead generation vendor, scored highest on visitor identification, CRM sync and export, and data coverage, all ranging 4 to 6. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
SalesIntel, a lead generation vendor, scored highest on visitor identification, CRM sync and export, and data coverage, all ranging 4 to 6. VisitorIntel matches IP and behavioral signals against a company database, identifies companies rather than individuals, writes back to CRM records in real time, and names Bombora among 60,000+ intent topics. Coverage is published by region — US, Canada, EMEA and APAC — with volumes of 200M+ verified B2B contacts and 54M+ verified mobile numbers, human verification every 90 days at a stated 95% accuracy, but no country breakdown; the captured pages also give different figures for the company database, 22M+ versus 30M+. The lowest band outside pricing is sovereignty, 2 to 4, a spread tracking how much weight judges gave the stated transfer basis — the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and SCCs "where applicable" — against a Delaware contracting entity, possible US processing, and no public information on EU hosting or a data processing agreement; prospecting compliance follows at 3 to 4 on US-framed compliance. No price is published for any tier; a free trial is offered.
Speaks for it
- Identifies visiting companies rather than individual users — per the vendor's own note — with real-time alerts, ICP filters and real-time CRM writeback.
- Native integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot and Marketo, plus a documented RESTful API with webhooks in both directions.
- Published volumes and cadence: 200M+ verified B2B contacts, 54M+ verified mobile numbers, human verification every 90 days at a stated 95% accuracy.
- Third-party intent source named — Bombora, alongside in-house PredictiveIntent — across 60,000+ intent topics.
- Self-service opt-out for people in the database, with 2025 metrics showing 761,431 deletion requests complied with, 0 denied, at a median one-day response.
Held against it
- Coverage stated only at region level — US, Canada, EMEA and APAC — with no country breakdown, while the privacy policy describes the Leads database as profiling decision makers based in the United States.
- The captured pages give different figures for the company database, 22M+ versus 30M+.
- Contracting entity is SalesIntel Research, Inc., a Delaware corporation whose policy says personal information may be stored, processed or transferred to servers in the United States, and we found no public information on EU hosting, an EU representative or a data processing agreement.
- We found no public information on a consent position for the VisitorIntel tracking script — consent mode, cookieless operation, or a statement under Germany's TDDDG.
- We found no public information on suppression lists, do-not-call register checks or EU cold-outreach guidance; the vendor's outreach compliance statement concerns its own CAN-SPAM compliance.
Best for
- You run ABM on largely US traffic and want account de-anonymization that names its third-party intent source and pushes visitor audiences to social media and Google Ads.
- Your outbound team needs high contact volume with mobile numbers and a published 90-day verification cadence for multichannel sequences that include calls.
- Your RevOps team can build on a documented RESTful API with contact, company and technographic append endpoints plus webhooks.
- You target a niche ICP and want research-on-demand support to build custom lists.
Avoid if
- You need German or DACH country-level data depth — coverage is stated at region level only, and the Leads database is described as profiling decision makers based in the United States.
- You must clear EU cold outreach with vendor-side guardrails — the published compliance posture is CAN-SPAM and an opt-out model, and we found no public information on suppression lists or do-not-call register checks.
- Your DPO requires EU hosting, an EU contracting entity or a data processing agreement — the pages show a Delaware corporation and possible transfers to US servers.
- You plan to point the tracking script at German website traffic — the only public statement on VisitorIntel's consent posture is a generic note of compliance with applicable privacy regulations.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Coverage, accuracy & freshness | 2.5 of 5 |
| Data sources & lawful basis | 2 of 5 |
| Visitor identification & intent signals | 2.5 of 5 |
| Prospecting workflow & outreach rules | 2 of 5 |
| CRM sync, enrichment & export | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 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 — Not a data product: the tool supplies no contact or company data and only manages leads the customer brings.
3 — Total record counts for the database with the data types offered (email, phone, company data) and email verification mentioned.
5 — Coverage stated by country or region with Europe or DACH included, email verification described, firmographics beyond name and domain (industry, size, revenue), and a refresh cadence or last-verified date stated.
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 numbers that matter to my team are on the page — 200M+ verified contacts, 54M+ mobile numbers, direct dials, and a 90-day verification cycle with 250 full-time researchers behind a 95% accuracy claim — with coverage claimed across the US, Canada, EMEA and APAC plus firmographic and technographic fields. But it stays at region level: no country or industry breakdown, and we found no public information on register-sourced company data or bounce-guarantee and credit-back terms. The privacy policy also frames the Leads database around decision makers based in the United States, so DACH depth is an open question before I put my reps on it. 1 2 3 5
The RevOps Manager
Coverage is stated at region level with EMEA included, on 200 million-plus contacts and 54 million-plus verified mobile numbers, and the verification story is real: human and AI verification on a 90-day cycle at a claimed 95% accuracy with firmographic and technographic fields. But there is no per-country breakdown, the privacy policy says the Leads database profiles decision makers based in the United States, and I found no bounce or credit-back guarantee making inaccuracy the vendor's cost. 1 2 3 5 7 9
The Data Protection Officer
Verified totals are published — 200M+ verified contacts, 54M+ verified mobile numbers, and a 90-day verification cycle described as AI plus human researchers at a claimed 95% accuracy — with coverage stated by region including EMEA and firmographics and technographics per company. However, we found no public information on country-level breakdowns, register-sourced company data, per-field verification dates visible to the user, or refund terms for inaccurate records, and the privacy policy describes the Leads database as profiling decision makers based in the United States while the data pages claim US, Canada, EMEA and APAC coverage — the captured pages give different scope claims for the same database. 1 2 3 4 5
The ABM Marketer
Volume and hygiene are documented: 200M+ verified B2B contacts, 54M+ verified mobile numbers, human verification every 90 days with a 95% accuracy claim, and coverage claimed across US, Canada, EMEA and APAC. But nothing breaks coverage down by country or industry, the privacy policy says the Leads database profiles decision makers based in the United States, and the captured pages give different figures for the company database (22M+ versus 30M+), so I cannot tell what a DACH list would actually contain. Verification method and refresh cadence are published; I found no public information on per-country accuracy methodology or any credit-back terms. 1 2 3 4 5
The DACH Sales Director
Volume and verification substance are documented — 200M+ verified contacts, 54M+ mobiles, a 90-day refresh cycle at a stated 95% accuracy with human researchers — but coverage is stated only as US, Canada, EMEA and APAC, with no Germany, Austria or Switzerland figures, and the privacy policy describes the leads database as profiling US-based decision makers. The captured pages also give different figures for the company database, 22M+ versus 30M+ companies. We found no public information on DACH country-level coverage, register-sourced company data, or bounce and credit-back terms. 1 2 3 5
The Skeptic
Record counts, data types and a 90-day verification cycle are documented — 200M+ contacts, 54M+ mobile numbers, human researchers, 95% accuracy — but coverage is stated at region level only, and the captured pages give different figures for geographic reach: the data pages promise US, Canada, EMEA and APAC while the privacy policy describes the Leads database as profiling US-based decision makers. The company database itself is quoted at 30M+ in one place and 22M+ in another. We found no public information on a bounce or credit-back guarantee, per-country accuracy, or per-record verification dates visible to the user. 1 2 3 5 7
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 — The vendor states that it leaves the legal basis for the personal data it sells entirely to the buyer, or that records are collected without the people in them being able to object.
3 — Sources described in general terms (public sources, partners), a GDPR legal basis named, and an opt-out or removal route for people in the database.
5 — Source categories named (registers, company websites, contributory networks, licensed partners), legitimate interest under Art. 6(1)(f) stated as the basis for EU records, a privacy notice addressed to 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 in general terms — hundreds of researchers on the web plus a proprietary data feed — with legitimate interest named among the legal bases and a genuinely working self-service route for people in the database (view, hide, delete, change) that shows 761,431 deletion requests complied with and zero denied. We found no public information on an Art. 14 notification practice, per-record source traceability, or EU records being handled differently from US ones; the stated posture is a US company under US law with CAN-SPAM most prominent. 2 5 8
The RevOps Manager
Sources are described only in general terms — researchers on the web plus a proprietary feed — with legitimate interest listed among several legal bases and a self-service opt-out where people can view, hide, delete or correct their record. I found no Art. 14 notification practice, no published balancing test, and no per-record traceability of source or collection date. That's enough for initial due diligence, thin for a European data-protection review. 2 5 8
The Data Protection Officer
Sources are described only in general terms — hundreds of researchers on the web plus a proprietary data feed, with three sources merged into each record but no source named per record — and the policy lists consent, contract, legal obligation and legitimate interest without stating which basis covers EU records; we found no public information on an Art. 14 notification practice or a published balancing test, and the policy states SalesIntel is a U.S. company governed by U.S. law operating as an opt-out service provider. What is real is the removal route: people in the database can view, hide, delete and correct their record at the opt-out page with identity verification, and published metrics show 761,431 deletion requests complied with, zero denied, at a median one-day response. 1 2 5 8
The ABM Marketer
Sources are described only in general terms — hundreds of researchers on the web plus a proprietary data feed — with no named source categories, and legitimate interest appears in a list of four legal bases rather than stated as the basis for EU records specifically. The opt-out page is genuinely addressed to the people in the database (view, hide, delete/do-not-sell, change my data) with form-based requests and identity verification, and the published metrics show 761,431 deletion requests complied with and none denied. I found no public information on an Article 14 notification practice, a published balancing test, or EU records being handled differently from US records. 2 5 8
The DACH Sales Director
Sources are described only in general terms — researchers on the web and a proprietary data feed — and the legal bases listed include legitimate interest alongside consent and contract without tying it to EU records specifically. A working opt-out route for the people in the database (view, hide, delete, change my data) is documented and backed by published request metrics, but we found no public information on an Art. 14 notification practice or a published balancing test. 2 5 8
The Skeptic
Sources are described only in general terms — researchers on the web and a proprietary data feed — and we found no public information on per-record source traceability; legitimate interest is listed among four legal bases but is not stated as the basis for EU records specifically. To their credit, people in the database get a self-service route to view, hide, delete and correct their data, and deletion-request metrics are published. We found no public information on an Article 14 notification practice or a published balancing test. 2 5 8
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; the product does not look at website visits.
3 — Reverse-IP identification of the companies behind website visits through a tracking script, with visits listed per company.
5 — Company-level identification with filters and visit history per company, alerts or CRM handover of identified companies, and a stated position on consent for the script or a consent-mode option.
8 — Company-level only for EU traffic by design, cookieless operation documented, integration with common consent management platforms and the §25 TDDDG position stated, 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
Company-level identification via IP address and behavioral matching, with ICP filters, engagement scoring, real-time alerts, routing rules by territory and account tier, real-time CRM writeback, and 60,000+ intent topics from PredictiveIntent plus a named partner, Bombora. The captured pages give different figures for the company database (30M+ and 22M+), the product identifies companies rather than individuals, and we found no public position on consent for the script or the German TDDDG, which is what I would need before pointing it at German traffic. 1 7
The RevOps Manager
VisitorIntel matches IP and behavioral signals against a company database and explicitly identifies companies rather than individuals, with real-time alerts, routing rules by territory and account tier, CRM writeback, and a named third-party intent source in Bombora across 60,000-plus topics. But I found no public position on consent for the tracking script under §25 TDDDG, no cookieless claim, and no consent-management-platform integration. Strong capability, silent on exactly the part a DPO will ask about. 1 7
The Data Protection Officer
VisitorIntel matches IP addresses and behavioural signals against a company database to identify visiting organisations, with ICP filters, visit-behaviour scoring, real-time alerts, routing rules, CRM writeback, 60,000+ intent topics and Bombora named as a third-party intent source; the product claims to identify companies, not individual users. We found no public information on a consent position for the tracking script under §25 TDDDG, a consent-mode option, cookieless operation, EU-specific handling, or the consent basis for the co-op intent data — only a generic statement that the product operates in compliance with applicable privacy regulations. 1 7
The ABM Marketer
This is what I care about, and it mostly delivers: VisitorIntel matches IP addresses and behavioral signals against a company database, identifies companies and not individual users, fires real-time alerts on ICP-fit visits with routing rules by territory, account tier and visit behavior, and — rare in this market — names its third-party intent source, Bombora, alongside PredictiveIntent across 60,000+ topics. The gap is consent: the only statement is that it operates in compliance with applicable privacy regulations, and I found no public information on a consent-mode option, cookieless operation, integration with consent platforms, or a position on Germany's TDDDG for the script. 1 3 7
The DACH Sales Director
Company-level identification via IP and behavioural signal matching is documented, with the plain statement that it identifies companies and not individuals, plus alerts, ICP filtering, routing rules and real-time CRM writeback; the third-party intent source is named (Bombora alongside in-house PredictiveIntent). But we found no public information on a stated consent position for the tracking script, cookieless operation, or anything on §25 TDDDG, which leaves the decisive question for German traffic unaddressed. 1 7
The Skeptic
VisitorIntel identifies companies — not individuals, per the vendor's own note — by matching IP addresses and behavioural signals against the company database, with ICP filters, real-time alerts, custom routing rules, real-time CRM writeback, and third-party intent credited by name to Bombora. We found no public information on consent handling for the tracking script, cookieless operation, consent-platform integration or a §25 TDDDG position. 1 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 — No search, list building or outreach; the product only stores leads entered or captured elsewhere.
3 — Search with filters on firmographics and job title, saved lists, and export of the contacts found.
5 — Advanced filters (technographics, hiring or funding triggers), saved searches with alerts, a suppression or do-not-contact list, and guidance on GDPR or cold-outreach rules for EU contacts.
8 — Country-aware handling (for example German contacts flagged where cold calls and emails require consent under UWG §7), 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
Filters and list building are strong — ICP filters, 42,000+ tracked technologies, funding and hiring triggers, buying-committee multithreading, and sequencing across email, social and calls with an AI dialer. We found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, checks against do-not-call registers, or guidance on UWG §7 and the GDPR for EU contacts; the compliance framing is CAN-SPAM and an opt-out model, so the legal risk on German cold outreach stays with my team. 1 2 4
The RevOps Manager
Search with detailed filters, list building, export through the API, and trigger-level filters such as technographics and funding or hiring signals are all documented. I found no suppression or do-not-contact list for buyers, no guidance on GDPR or cold-outreach rules for EU contacts, and nothing country-aware such as flagging German contacts under UWG §7. The legal risk of outreach sits with the customer, not the workflow. 1 4 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Search filters, list building and export are documented, together with serious outreach capability — email, social and calls in one sequence, an AI dialer, and sequences triggered from visit behaviour through Outreach and Salesloft. We found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, screening against national do-not-call registers, country-aware flags for German contacts, opt-outs synced back from outreach, or guidance on GDPR and UWG cold-outreach rules; the only outreach compliance statement is that the company itself is CAN-SPAM compliant, a US regime. 1 2 4 7 10
The ABM Marketer
The workflow is there — search filters for the ICP, list building, a free Chrome extension, buying-committee contacts, and multichannel sequencing through ProspectConnect, Outreach and Salesloft triggered by visit behavior — and the compliance posture is visibly American: CAN-SPAM named most prominently, California data-broker registration and DROP participation, a 30-day unsubscribe response. I found no public information on do-not-contact suppression lists, guidance for cold outreach to German contacts under UWG §7, or checks against national do-not-call registers. 1 2 4 9
The DACH Sales Director
Search filters, list building for outbound and export are documented, and sequences bundle email, social and calls with an AI dialer in beta. But the compliance posture is framed in US terms — the vendor calls itself a US opt-out service provider and names CAN-SPAM as its most prominent regulation — and we found no public information on consent flags for EU contacts, UWG §7 handling, do-not-call register checks or suppression lists, so the legal risk of German outreach sits entirely with the buyer. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
Search with firmographic and technographic filters, buying-committee targeting, funding and hiring triggers, list building and export to CRM and sequencing tools are all documented. We found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, on outreach opt-outs syncing back to the database, or on country-aware rules for EU cold outreach — the compliance material that does appear (CAN-SPAM, the opt-out form) concerns SalesIntel's own data practices rather than the buyer's. 1 4 9
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 — Data can only be viewed inside the product; the vendor states no export and no integration.
3 — CSV export and a push of contacts to at least one named CRM.
5 — Native integrations with the major CRMs (Salesforce, HubSpot or similar) with field mapping or deduplication, enrichment of existing CRM records, and a documented API.
8 — Bidirectional sync with scheduled re-enrichment, update and deletion propagated when a record changes or a person objects, webhook or API access with stated limits and 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
Native integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot and Marketo (plus Zoho, Microsoft Dynamics, Outreach and Salesloft), real-time writeback of visitor activity into CRM records, contact and company append APIs, and a documented RESTful API with webhooks in both directions. We found no public information on bidirectional sync that propagates deletions when a person objects, stated API limits or per-call costs, or what happens to our data when the subscription ends. 7 9 10
The RevOps Manager
Native integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot and Marketo, a documented RESTful API with webhooks, contact and company append endpoints, and real-time writeback of visitor activity to CRM account records — this is a genuine integration story, not a CSV handoff. What I look for and did not find: field mapping or deduplication, bidirectional sync or scheduled re-enrichment, objections propagated into synced records, and stated exit terms for exported data and access when the subscription ends. 1 7 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Native integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot and Marketo are documented alongside Dynamics, Zoho, Outreach and Salesloft, with contact, company and technographic append APIs, real-time CRM writeback of visitor activity, and a documented RESTful API with webhooks and custom export applications in a producer-receiver model. We found no public information on field mapping or deduplication, bidirectional sync, propagation of corrections or objections into synced records, API rate limits and costs per call, or which data the customer may keep and for how long after cancellation — which matters because the buyer becomes controller the moment data leaves the platform. 7 9 10
The ABM Marketer
Native integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Marketo and Microsoft Dynamics, real-time writeback of visitor activity to CRM account records, contact- and company-append APIs to enrich what I already own, and a documented RESTful API with webhooks give me a real pipe from signal to owner. I found no public information on field mapping or deduplication, on deletions and objections propagating into synced records, on API limits, or on what happens to exported data and my access to it when the subscription ends. 7 9 10
The DACH Sales Director
Native integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Marketo, Dynamics and Zoho, a documented RESTful API with contact and company search and append including technographics, webhooks in both directions and real-time writeback into CRM records form a solid enrichment-and-export story. We found no public information on field mapping or deduplication, on propagation of deletions when a person objects, or on data retention rights after cancellation. 7 9 10
The Skeptic
Native integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot and Marketo, real-time writeback to CRM, a documented RESTful API with contact, company and technographic append, webhooks in both directions and custom export applications are all on the public pages. We found no public information on field mapping or deduplication, on API rate limits or per-call costs, or on what happens to exported data and the buyer's access after cancellation. 7 9 10
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 — Vendor, contracting entity and processing of EU residents' contact data all shown to be outside the EU, with no transfer basis stated.
3 — A named contracting entity and a privacy policy or data processing agreement; a non-EU entity with an EU representative under Art. 27, or EU hosting offered while the hosting location of the database is not stated.
5 — EU hosting stated as standard, together with an EU contracting entity or a published subprocessor list, and a data processing agreement offered.
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 SalesIntel Research, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and personal information may be stored, processed or transferred on servers in the United States — but a transfer basis is stated: EU-US Data Privacy Framework participation plus the UK and Swiss extensions, and Standard Contractual Clauses where applicable, with Stripe, Mailgun, MailChimp and Customer.io named as processors. We found no public information on EU hosting, an EU representative, or a data processing agreement. 2
The RevOps Manager
The contracting entity is SalesIntel Research, Inc., a Delaware corporation that describes itself as a US company governed by US law, with personal information possibly stored and processed on servers in the United States; the transfer basis claimed is the EU-US Data Privacy Framework plus Standard Contractual Clauses, and named processors span the EU and US. I found no EU hosting, no data processing agreement documented, and no EU representative named. A US stack with framework-based transfers, not European sovereignty. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is SalesIntel Research, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its registered office in Vienna, Virginia; the policy states the company is a U.S. company governed by U.S. law and that personal information may be stored and processed on servers in the United States. Transfers are addressed through EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework compliance, the UK and Swiss extensions, and Standard Contractual Clauses where applicable, and a small set of processors (Stripe, Mailgun, MailChimp, Customer.io) is named as based in the EU and US; we found no public information on EU hosting, an Art. 27 EU representative, a full subprocessor and data-partner list, or a data processing agreement. 2
The ABM Marketer
The contracting entity is SalesIntel Research, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a US registered office, the Leads database is described as profiling United States-based decision makers, and personal information may be stored or transferred to servers in the United States — but a transfer basis is stated (the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework with UK and Swiss extensions, SCCs where applicable), and some processors are named as based in the EU and US. I found no public information on an EU contracting entity, EU hosting, or a data processing agreement on the captured pages. 2
The DACH Sales Director
The contracting entity is SalesIntel Research, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a Virginia office; the company states it is governed by US law and that personal information may be transferred to and processed on servers in the United States, with the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and SCCs named as transfer bases and a short subprocessor list published. We found no public information on EU hosting, an EU representative under Art. 27, or a data processing agreement, so a US entity and US processing is all the evidence shows. 2
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is SalesIntel Research, Inc., a Delaware corporation; the privacy policy says personal information may be stored, processed or transferred outside the country of origin including to servers in the United States, and states the company is a U.S. company governed by U.S. law and an opt-out service provider. Transfer bases are claimed through the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and Standard Contractual Clauses "where applicable", and four subprocessors are named. We found no public information on EU hosting, an EU entity or Article 27 representative, or a data processing agreement — for a database of EU residents' contact data, every documented element sits in the United States. 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 public "from" price, a free tier or one priced tier, while what a credit buys or the other tiers are not stated.
5 — Prices public per tier with the billing period and the credits or contacts included per tier; extras such as mobile numbers, additional seats or API access may still be on request.
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
No price figures on any page we read — the model is quoted as "One fee, unlimited data. No credit counting. No per-seat gatekeeping," rates may "support different rates between different tiers of data" depending on the contract, and a free trial is offered. My finance team cannot compute a real annual cost from any of that; every number is a sales conversation. 1 6 7
The RevOps Manager
The pricing model is described as one flat fee with unlimited data and no credit counting, but I found no public prices on any captured page — tier rates are contract-based, and the free trial and free Chrome extension don't let me compute an annual cost. A flat-fee promise is refreshing in a category that invents billing units, but without a number it is still a sales conversation. 1 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
No price is published for any tier — the pages show a free trial, but we found no public figure, no "from" price and no per-seat cost — and the developer documentation notes the contract may support different rates between tiers of data. The billing model itself is described publicly as one fee, unlimited data, no credit counting and no per-seat gatekeeping, which tells a buyer the structure, but the real annual cost cannot be computed from public pages alone. 1 6 7
The ABM Marketer
I can see the shape of the bill — "One fee, unlimited data, No credit counting. No per-seat gatekeeping" — plus a free trial, but no price for any tier appears in public, and the pages say the contract may support different rates between different tiers of data, so the real annual cost is a sales conversation. I found no public information on seat costs, term minimums or VAT treatment. 1 6 7
The DACH Sales Director
The pricing model is public — one flat fee, unlimited data, no credit counting, no per-seat gatekeeping — and a free trial is offered, but we found no public information on any price figure for any tier, and the developer documentation notes that contract-based rates may differ between data tiers. A Mittelstand buyer cannot compute the annual invoice from these pages. 1 6 7
The Skeptic
The only pricing information published is a model description — "One fee, unlimited data No credit counting. No per-seat gatekeeping" — plus a free trial, and a developer note that "Your contract may support different rates between different tiers of data". We found no public price figures: no tier prices, seat costs, minimum term, VAT treatment, or refund rule for inaccurate data. 1 6 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Outside the EU ⚠ unverified | 0/4 pts | 2 Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about SalesIntel
Is SalesIntel European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where SalesIntel is based.
Where does SalesIntel store data?
SalesIntel stores customer data outside the EU by default, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
Does SalesIntel have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to SalesIntel?
As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates Cognism (3/5), Dealfront (3/5) and Vainu (3/5) highest among the other 40 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: SalesIntel alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Hosting location. The policy frames this as consent to possible transfers rather than an explicit statement of the default hosting location for all customer data.
- Weak sourcing — 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.
- 24 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
- 6 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
- 2 data 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 compliance 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.salesintel.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage salesintel.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap salesintel.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap salesintel.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Data sources & lawful basis — found from sitemap salesintel.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Data sources & lawful basis — found from sitemap developer.salesintel.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap salesintel.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap salesintel.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap salesintel.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap salesintel.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →