Lead Generation
Skrapp
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Skrapp · www.skrapp.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.
Skrapp at a glance
- Vendor
- Skrapp
- 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 Skrapp 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Skrapp is a lead-generation vendor whose public offering centers on a REST API for email finding, verification, lead-list management and company enrichment across 40M+ company profiles in 248 countries and 481 industries. 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
Skrapp is a lead-generation vendor whose public offering centers on a REST API for email finding, verification, lead-list management and company enrichment across 40M+ company profiles in 248 countries and 481 industries. Its strongest showing is CRM sync and export, where scores cluster at 4: documented endpoints with rate-limit headers, bulk email finding for up to 500 people, published per-category credit costs and free refreshes under a pay-once rule. Its weakest are sovereignty and visitor identification, where scores run 0-1 and we found no public information on the contracting entity, hosting location, subprocessors or website-visitor tracking; data provenance sits at 2, with a 7-year retention period and a support email as the only data-subject provisions evidenced. Judges genuinely split on prospecting compliance, from 1 to 4: some credited 60+ filters across 12 groups and full API list management, others penalized the absence of public cold-outreach guidance, suppression lists or do-not-call screening. Pricing transparency runs 2-4, unit credit costs public and plan prices not, and data coverage runs 3-4 on global headline counts.
Speaks for it
- CRM sync and export scores cluster at 4 on a documented REST API with rate-limit headers, bulk endpoints and full lead-list management
- Published per-category credit costs, from 1 credit for firmographics to 5 for signals and 25 for all 12 categories, with errors, empty categories and refreshes never charged
- Search spans 60+ filters across 12 groups, including technologies, hiring and growth signals, returning a free company card
- 50 free credits with no card required, enrichment on free plans for 14 days from sign-up, and entitlements that never expire
- Stated coverage of 40M+ company profiles across 248 countries, 481 industries and 3,430 tracked technologies
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores run 0-1; we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, hosting location or any subprocessor
- Data provenance sits at 2; the captured GDPR page states a 7-year retention period and routes requests to support@skrapp.io, and we found no public information on data sources, the legal basis for processing, or a method behind the verified-emails claim
- Visitor identification scores run 0-1; we found no public information on identifying companies behind website visits or on any tracking script
- Pricing transparency runs 2-4; we found no public information on plan prices, seat costs, minimum terms or VAT treatment, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages
- Prospecting compliance splits from 1 to 4; we found no public information on suppression lists, do-not-call register checks or cold-outreach guidance for EU markets
Best for
- You enrich your CRM programmatically and can build the sync yourself against the REST API
- You want unit-level cost visibility before committing, starting from 50 free credits that require no card
- You build account lists from broad firmographic filters across 40M+ company profiles
Avoid if
- You need to identify companies visiting your own website; we found no public information on such a capability and visitor identification scores run 0-1
- You must document data sourcing, the legal basis for processing and removal routes as part of procurement
- You need published plan prices, seat costs and VAT treatment to budget an annual invoice
- You expect the vendor to help keep outreach lawful in EU markets, through suppression lists or do-not-call checks
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Coverage, accuracy & freshness | 2 of 5 |
| Data sources & lawful basis | 1 of 5 |
| Visitor identification & intent signals | 0 of 5 |
| Prospecting workflow & outreach rules | 1.5 of 5 |
| CRM sync, enrichment & export | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 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 — 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
Forty-million-plus companies across 248 countries with 60-plus filters, 481 industries and 3,430 tracked technologies is a serious prospecting surface. But it is one global headline with nothing specific to DACH, no verification method behind the "verified business emails" tagline, and no stated cadence for re-checking records; the free-refresh rule tells me updates cost nothing, not how fresh the data is. I found no public information on phone numbers or direct dials, which is what my connect rate lives on. 2 3 4
The RevOps Manager
Headline counts are solid — 40M+ company profiles across 248 countries and 481 industries with real firmographics, headcount, financials and 3,430 tracked technologies — but coverage is stated only globally with nothing specific to DACH, and emails are described as verified without a documented verification method or refresh cadence for contact data. Company enrichment refreshes for free with the latest data, which I like, but I found no accuracy methodology and no bounce or credit-back terms for inaccurate records. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
Coverage is a headline figure — 40 million-plus company profiles across 248 countries, 481 industries and 3,430 tracked technologies — with regional domain resolution and a free refresh that returns latest data on later requests, but we found no public information on per-country coverage including DACH, on how contact records are verified, or on a re-verification cadence. Accuracy rests on the word "verified" in the tagline. 2 3 4
The ABM Marketer
Forty million company profiles searchable across 248 countries with 481 industries and SIC/NAICS codes gives me real firmographic depth for building account lists, but I found no public information on DACH-specific coverage, an accuracy methodology behind the verified-emails claim, or how often records are re-verified. The zero-credit refresh is a billing rule, not a refresh cadence, so accuracy and freshness stay asserted rather than documented. 2 3 4
The DACH Sales Director
Everything is stated at world scale — 40M+ company profiles across 248 countries, 481 industries, 3,430 tracked technologies — and "verified business emails" reads as an assertion rather than a method. We found no public information on coverage for Germany, Austria or Switzerland in particular, no re-verification cadence for contact records, and no bounce or credit-back guarantee; the free-refresh promise is a billing rule, not an accuracy commitment. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
Forty million company profiles across 248 countries, 481 industries and 3,430 tracked technologies are stated, and later enrichment requests return the latest data at zero credits — but that is company data: the emails are described as "verified" with no method, no re-verification cadence and no per-country coverage, DACH included. The nearest thing to accountability is that errors and empty categories are never charged. 2 3 4
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 GDPR page names a seven-year retention period from the processing date and one support email for data-subject requests, and that is the entire provenance story on the captured pages. I found no public information on where the contact data is sourced from, the legal basis for processing it, or any notice to the people listed; an email to support is the only route shown to a listed person. 3
The RevOps Manager
The GDPR page states a 7-year retention period and points people to support@skrapp.io for requests, but I found no public statement of where the contact data comes from, no named legal basis or legitimate-interest balancing, and no self-service removal — the only route for a listed person is an email to support. With a LinkedIn Email Finder and a browser extension in the capability list, collection-method disclosure is exactly what I'd need to see and the pages do not show it. 3
The Data Protection Officer
The GDPR page states a seven-year retention period from the processing date and routes data-subject requests to a support email address, but we found no public information on where the contact data is sourced, on the legal basis for processing it, on an information notice to the people listed, or on any removal route beyond writing to support. Seven years from the processing date is also a long retention figure to state without a justification. 3
The ABM Marketer
I found no public information on where the contact data comes from or the legal basis it is processed on — no source categories, no legitimate-interest position, no Article 14 practice. A seven-year retention period and an email address for privacy requests are the only data-subject provisions evidenced, which is a request route, not a self-service removal process. 3
The DACH Sales Director
The GDPR page offers listed people an email route for requests and a seven-year retention period, and that is all the captured page shows. We found no public information on where the contact data comes from, on which legal basis it is processed, or on any notice given to the people in the database — and the browser extension is presented purely as a finder, with no disclosure of whether it also collects. 3
The Skeptic
The GDPR page tells listed people to email support@skrapp.io and sets a 7-year retention period from the processing date, but we found no public information on where the contact data comes from, the lawful basis for processing it, a balancing statement, or a self-service removal route. A support inbox is the only door offered to a data subject. 3
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
I found no public information on visitor identification — nothing on reverse-IP company matching, website-visit tracking, or a consent position for a tracking script. The nearest thing is a paid growth-signals category (funding momentum, burn rate, growth trends) for account scoring, which is company momentum rather than companies visiting my site. 2 4
The RevOps Manager
We found no public information on identifying companies behind website visits or on buying-intent signals; the documented capability set is email finding, lead lists, company search and enrichment, with "signals" being company-level growth data rather than visitor tracking. There is also no consent or TDDDG position to evaluate, because nothing on the captured pages describes a tracking script at all. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on website-visitor identification, reverse-IP matching or intent data; the documented modules are email finding, company search and enrichment, and the signals and traffic categories are company-level growth and website-traffic statistics rather than identification of visitors to the buyer's own site. Nothing published addresses consent for a tracking script, because we found no public information that such a script exists. 3 4
The ABM Marketer
No website visitor identification is evidenced on the captured pages — no company-level reverse lookup of my own traffic, no consent position, no alerting to account owners while a signal is warm — which rules this out for my in-market use case. The one point above the floor is for a growth-signals enrichment category (hiring momentum, funding, traffic change) that can proxy for account motion, though its source goes unnamed. 4 5
The DACH Sales Director
The product pages show email finding, lead search and company enrichment; the "signals" category is revenue per employee, burn rate and funding momentum, which is firmographic scoring rather than website visitor identification. We found no public information on identifying companies behind website visits, on any tracking script, or on the vendor's position on the consent duty that applies to such scripts in Germany. 3 4
The Skeptic
The product's modules are email finding, lead search, browser extension and company enrichment; we found no public information on identifying the companies behind website visits, on intent topics, or on any consent position for a tracking script. The "signals" in the catalogue are company financials and hiring trends, not visitor behaviour. 3
Prospecting workflow & outreach rules
panel disagrees
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
Search and list-building are what I want for my team: 60-plus filters across twelve groups including technographics, hiring and growth signals, lookalikes and exclusions, plus full lead-list management. What I found no public information on is any help staying legal once the list exists — no suppression or do-not-contact list, no country-aware flagging of German contacts, no guidance on cold-outreach consent rules; the GDPR page only describes how a data subject emails in a request. 2 3 5
The RevOps Manager
Search has 60+ filters across 12 groups including technologies and signals, and lists are first-class API objects you can create, rename, delete and add leads to, which covers list building well. But I found no public information on a global suppression or do-not-contact list, no guidance on cold outreach rules in the main EU markets, and no checking against do-not-call registers — the GDPR page covers retention and data-subject requests, not what the buyer may lawfully do with a list. 2 3 5
The Data Protection Officer
Search offers more than 60 filters across 12 groups and lead lists can be created, renamed and deleted through the API, but we found no public information on cold-outreach rules in EU markets, do-not-call register checks, suppression or do-not-contact lists, or how responsibilities are allocated between vendor and buyer. The GDPR page confines itself to the vendor's own retention and request handling rather than the buyer's use of exported contacts. 2 3 5
The ABM Marketer
Search is genuinely strong — more than sixty filters across twelve groups including lookalikes and exclusions, plus full list management through the API — but I found no public information on cold-outreach guidance for the main EU markets, a do-not-contact list, or do-not-call register checks. Every legal question about working the list is left with me as the buyer. 2 3 5
The DACH Sales Director
Search and list building are genuinely strong — more than sixty filters in twelve groups including technographics and hiring, with full list management through the API — but the story stops at the list. We found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, on guidance for cold outreach rules in Germany or the wider EU, or on any country-aware flagging of contacts, and the GDPR page speaks of retention and privacy requests rather than of the question a German buyer actually asks: may I call this person. 2 5 3
The Skeptic
Search runs on 60+ filters across 12 groups including technologies, hiring and funding signals, and lists can be created and managed through the API, but the GDPR page is silent on what a buyer may lawfully send to German or EU contacts. We found no public information on a suppression or do-not-contact list, country-aware flagging of contacts, or do-not-call screening. 2 3 5
CRM sync, enrichment & export
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting the data into the systems where sales works — CRM sync, enrichment of existing records, API — and what happens to exported data, and to the buyer's access to it, when the subscription ends.
0 — Manual CSV export only; no CRM integration and no API.
3 — A one-way push to one CRM, CSV export, and no statement on whether exported data may be kept after cancellation.
5 — Native sync with the major CRMs including field mapping and deduplication, enrichment of existing CRM records, and a documented API with stated limits.
8 — Bidirectional sync with scheduled re-enrichment, update and deletion propagated when a record changes or a person objects, webhook or API access with credit costs per call published, and data retention rights after cancellation stated plainly.
10 — The vendor treats the buyer's CRM as the system of record: objections and corrections propagated into synced records automatically, full change history per field, a versioned API with a deprecation policy, and exit terms that say exactly which data the customer may keep and for how long.
The SDR Team Lead
The REST API is the strongest thing here: documented rate limits per minute and day, timeouts that are never charged, bulk find for 500 people, bulk enrichment for 20 companies, published credit costs per category, and an account endpoint to check the credit balance before a big run. CRM enrichment is pitched as a use case — enrich account records from their domain and refresh them for free — but it is API work, and I found no public information on native CRM connectors, field mapping, deduplication, webhooks, or what happens to exported data when the subscription ends. 4 5
The RevOps Manager
The REST API is genuinely well documented — versioned endpoints, rate-limit headers, bulk operations, published credit costs per data category, free refresh on re-enrichment, and rules that unrequested and empty categories are never charged — and a CRM-enrichment use case is stated. But I found no public information on native CRM sync, field mapping or deduplication, nothing on propagating updates or objections into synced records, and no statement on which data the customer may keep after cancellation — exit terms are the part I always read first. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
A well-documented REST API covers email finding and verification, company search and enrichment, list management with lead deletion, rate-limit headers and explicit rules on when credits are charged, and a stated CRM-enrichment use case with free refreshes; however, we found no public information on native sync with major CRMs including field mapping or deduplication, on webhooks, or on which exported data may be kept after cancellation. The moment a list leaves this product the buyer becomes controller, and the exit terms for that moment are unevidenced. 4 5
The ABM Marketer
The REST API is the strongest part of this product: rate-limit headers, bulk operations, per-category credit costs, and a free company snapshot, with domain-based CRM enrichment and free refresh named as a use case. But I found no native CRM sync with field mapping or deduplication, and no statement on what happens to exported data or my access once the subscription ends. 4 5
The DACH Sales Director
The REST API is the strongest thing here: rate-limit headers documented, credits per enrichment category published, pay-once entitlements with free refresh, bulk endpoints and list operations, and a stated use case of enriching CRM accounts from their domains. We found no public information on native CRM sync with field mapping and deduplication, on webhooks or bidirectional sync, or on what a buyer may keep after cancelling — the seven-year retention period is the vendor's own clock, not an exit right. 5 4 3
The Skeptic
A documented REST API covers finding, verification, enrichment and full list management, with rate-limit headers and an account endpoint that shows the plan and credit balance, and "CRM enrichment" is named as a use case with free refreshes under the pay-once rule. But we found no public information on native CRM sync, field mapping, deduplication, propagation of objections, or what happens to exported data after cancellation. 4 5
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where a database of EU residents' personal data is held, who the contracting entity and controller are, and which subprocessors see it. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted heavily here, because the product itself is personal data about people who never chose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and EU residents' contact data processed outside the EU with no stated transfer basis.
3 — Non-EU contracting entity with an EU representative under Art. 27, or EU hosting offered while enrichment, support or AI processing stay non-EU.
5 — EU contracting entity and EU hosting as standard, but parts of the chain — data partners, enrichment sources, tracking infrastructure — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU contracting entity and controller, EU hosting on named infrastructure, subprocessor and data-partner list published, and any non-EU transfer named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, controller, hosting, data partners and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a DPA covering both the customer's data and the database records the customer exports.
The SDR Team Lead
Nothing on the captured pages confirms the contracting entity, its jurisdiction, where EU residents' data is hosted, or a single subprocessor, and the independently gathered sovereignty attributes came back unconfirmed on all of it. For a database of people who never chose this vendor, that silence is decisive. 3
The RevOps Manager
Contracting entity, ownership, hosting location and subprocessors are all unstated on the captured pages, including the GDPR compliance page, which addresses only retention and request handling. For a database of EU residents' contact data, I have nothing here that would survive a DPO question about where the data sits or who processes it. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, hosting location or any subprocessor, and the GDPR page names only a support email address. For a database holding EU residents' contact details, the entire processing chain is unevidenced on the vendor's own captured pages. 1 3
The ABM Marketer
I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where EU residents' contact data is hosted, or which subprocessors and data partners see it; the captured privacy page speaks only to retention and email-based request handling. For a product that is itself personal data about people who never chose the vendor, that silence is decisive at the lowest score. 3
The DACH Sales Director
For a product that is personal data about people who never chose it, we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, on where EU contact data is hosted, or on a single subprocessor or data partner. Even the GDPR page names nothing but a support email address, so nothing here answers a German buyer's first due-diligence question. 1 3
The Skeptic
We found no public information on the contracting entity or its jurisdiction, where EU residents' contact data is hosted, or which subprocessors see it. The captured pages offer only a support email for privacy requests and a 7-year retention figure, with no named infrastructure or transfer basis anywhere. 1 3
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone — including credits per email, phone number and mobile, credit expiry, seat pricing, visitor-identification tiers and the API — in a category where the unit of billing is often invented by the vendor.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A monthly headline exists, but what a credit buys, whether credits expire, or the cost of an additional seat is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with credit allowances given, but at least one commonly needed piece (mobile numbers, extra seats, API access, CRM sync) is unpriced or behind a sales call.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with credits per data type, credit expiry and rollover, per-seat costs, overage rates, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: the annual invoice derivable for a given number of seats, exported contacts by data type, identified companies and API calls, with every credit cost and the refund rule for inaccurate data published.
The SDR Team Lead
Unit pricing is unusually precise — exact credit costs for all twelve data categories (25 credits for all of them), free refreshes, entitlements that never expire, errors and timeouts never charged, and 50 free credits with no card. But the subscription itself is invisible: I found no public information on plan prices, credit allowances per tier, per-seat costs, or the credit price of finding an email, so my team's annual invoice cannot be computed from these pages. 1 4 5
The RevOps Manager
Credit mechanics are unusually public — 50 free credits with no card required, per-category costs from 1 to 25 credits, and enrichment entitlements that never expire — but I found no public information on plan prices, seat costs, minimum term, VAT treatment, or the credit cost of finding or verifying an email. Without a single plan price on the pages, the annual invoice is not computable from public information alone. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
Credit economics for company data are unusually public — 50 free credits with no card, per-category costs from 1 to 5 credits, 25 credits for all twelve categories, free refreshes with entitlements that never expire, and rules that errors, empty categories and unrequested categories cost nothing. We found no public information on paid plan prices, seat costs, per-contact credit costs for email or phone data, minimum terms or VAT treatment, so the annual invoice cannot be derived from the captured pages. 1 4 5
The ABM Marketer
Enrichment credit economics are unusually clear — per-category costs of one to five credits, twenty-five for all twelve, pay-once with free refresh, entitlements that never expire, and errors uncharged. But I found no public plan prices, no credit cost per email found or per phone or mobile number, and no seat pricing, so the real annual invoice stays a sales conversation. 1 4 5
The DACH Sales Director
Credit costs per enrichment category are published with real candour — firmographics 1 credit, technographics 2, all twelve categories 25, refresh 0, errors never charged, entitlements never expiring, 50 free credits without a card. But we found no public information on tier prices, seat costs, minimum term, VAT treatment, or what an email-finder credit costs against those tiers, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from the pages. 4 1
The Skeptic
Credit costs are unusually public: 1 credit for firmographics up to 5 for signals, 25 credits for all twelve categories, 50 free credits with no card, entitlements that never expire, and no charge for errors, empty categories or refreshes. But the captured pages show no plan prices, no seat costs, no credit price for finding an email, and no VAT treatment — so the annual invoice still cannot be computed from public pages. 4 5
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Skrapp
Is Skrapp European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Skrapp is based.
Where does Skrapp store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Skrapp have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Skrapp?
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: Skrapp 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.
- 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.
- 14 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 pricing 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
- 4 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
- 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 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 legal 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
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.skrapp.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap skrapp.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap skrapp.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap skrapp.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap skrapp.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →