Lead Generation
Visual Visitor
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Visual Visitor · www.visualvisitor.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Visual Visitor at a glance
- Vendor
- Visual Visitor
- 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 Visual Visitor 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Visual Visitor is a lead-generation product that pairs person-level visitor identification (WebID +Person: name, email and 37 other data points) with a contact database of 868 million contacts, 79 million companies and 33 million cell phone numbers. 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
Visual Visitor is a lead-generation product that pairs person-level visitor identification (WebID +Person: name, email and 37 other data points) with a contact database of 868 million contacts, 79 million companies and 33 million cell phone numbers. The bench scores it strongest on prospecting compliance and CRM sync and export, clustering at 4: suppression lists, instant unsubscribe honouring, one-way pushes to CRM, email marketing, direct mail and custom-audience platforms, and a Platform API released May 6, 2026. Its weakest marks are sovereignty at 0–1 and data provenance at 1–2: contracting entity, ownership, data residency and subprocessors are all unknown, and we found no public information on where the records originate. Visitor identification splits the bench, 2 to 4: the ABM marketer's 4 credits real-time alerts and the decline path that stops the script, while the lower scores reject person-level tracking whose minimised banner registers inaction as consent. Data coverage scores 3–4, itemised for North America at 238 million and South America at 103 million, with no European or DACH figure found. We found no published prices; the route in is a free trial or a booked demo.
Speaks for it
- Suppression lists covering legal, known-customer and local filters guard automated campaigns
- Unsubscribe clicks remove prospects from future cadences instantly
- Prospect identity, pages visited and time spent push one-way to CRM, email marketing, direct mail and custom-audience platforms
- A Platform API released May 6, 2026 opens identification data and platform functions to custom applications
- Clicking decline on the consent banner stops the tracking script from firing
Held against it
- We found no public information on the contracting entity, ownership, data residency or subprocessors behind a database of 868 million contacts
- We found no public information on where the contact records originate or on what legal basis they are held
- Coverage is itemised for North America (238 million) and South America (103 million) only, and we found no European or DACH coverage figure
- A minimised consent banner registers visitor inaction as consent, a behavior the compliance-minded judges reject for EU use
- Compliance guidance on the captured pages is CAN-SPAM framed, and we found no public information on do-not-call register checks or country-aware flagging
Best for
- You run US-market outbound and want suppression lists and instant unsubscribe handling enforced inside automated email, direct mail and display campaigns
- You need named-visitor signals routed one-way into your CRM, email marketing or custom-audience platforms, with an API for your own tooling
- Your ABM team treats real-time alerts on high-value prospects as the core motion and clears consent handling with your own counsel
Avoid if
- Your pipeline runs through Germany, Austria or Switzerland and you need EU cold-outreach guidance and DACH coverage figures before buying
- Your procurement requires a stated contracting entity, hosting location and subprocessor list — the bench scored sovereignty 0 to 1 with all four attributes unknown
- Your DPO cannot accept a consent banner that treats visitor inaction as consent
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Coverage, accuracy & freshness | 1.5 of 5 |
| Data sources & lawful basis | 1 of 5 |
| Visitor identification & intent signals | 1 of 5 |
| Prospecting workflow & outreach rules | 2 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 headline counts are huge — 868 million contacts, 79 million companies, 33 million cell numbers — but the regional breakouts are North America and South America only, and I found no public information on European or DACH coverage at all. Validated emails are promised for the outreach system, yet I found no verification method and no re-verification cadence for the database itself, so I have nothing to judge what connect rate these records would actually give my reps. 2 5
The RevOps Manager
The headline counts are big — 868 million contacts, 238 million North American, 103 million South American, with separate counts for professional and personal email addresses and cell numbers — but the coverage figures break out the Americas only, and I found no public information on European or DACH coverage, on a verification method, or on any refresh cadence beyond "23% more contacts added this month." "Fully validated email addresses" is an assertion with nothing behind it, and accuracy claims I cannot check mean my CRM rots silently. 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
Headline counts are published — 868 million contacts, 79 million companies, 238 million North American and 103 million South American contacts, plus rich fields like job responsibilities and education — but no European or DACH figure is given, and nothing captured describes re-verification or a refresh cadence. The monthly growth number says the database grew, not that it was checked, and validated emails are guaranteed with no stated terms. 2 5
The ABM Marketer
The counts are headline-only — 868 million contacts, 79 million companies, regional splits for North America (238 million) and South America (103 million) — and the validated-emails guarantee is asserted with no stated method or terms; we found no public information on DACH or wider European coverage, a re-verification cadence, or a bounce guarantee. For my three hundred target accounts I cannot tell whether the German ones are even in the file. 2 5
The DACH Sales Director
Headline totals — 868 million contacts, 79 million companies — are broken out only for North and South America; we found no figures for Germany, Austria, Switzerland or any European market. Email addresses are "fully validated" as a bare guarantee with no method behind it, and the only stated cadence is 23% more contacts added in a month, which says nothing about re-verifying the records already held. 2 5
The Skeptic
Coverage is continental, not national: 868 million contacts with North America and South America itemised, and no European or DACH figure on any captured page. The monthly-update post celebrates 23% more contacts added — growth, not re-verification — and no verification method, refresh cadence for existing records, or bounce credit-back is described anywhere. Rich per-contact fields (education, accolades, social links) keep this just off the floor. 2 3
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 database announcement celebrates the size of the expansion and says nothing about where the contact data comes from or on what legal basis it is processed, and I found no legitimate-interest statement, balancing summary, or privacy notice for the people in the database. An opt-out page appears in the captured pages but nothing about its contents is confirmed, so a listed person's route to find and remove their record is unevidenced. 2 6
The RevOps Manager
For a database of 868 million people I found no public information on where the contact data comes from, on what legal basis it is processed, or whether the people in it ever receive a notice — the "consent-based identification" language describes the website tracking script, not the provenance of the records I would be syncing in. The opt-out page is the only visible route for a listed person, and no legitimate-interest balancing or EU/US distinction appears anywhere on the captured pages. 2 4 6
The Data Protection Officer
For 868 million contacts including 109 million personal email addresses, the captured pages say nothing about where the contact data comes from or on what legal basis it is held; the only basis-adjacent statement is an unexplained "industry-standard consent protocols" claim, and it concerns visitor identification rather than the database. An opt-out page exists in the captured links but no fact describes a self-service removal process, a notice to the people listed, or a balancing test — we found no public information on any of these. 2 4 6
The ABM Marketer
The only provenance-adjacent statement captured is a bare "each data point is captured with industry-standard consent protocols" line about visitor identification; we found no public information on where the 868 million contacts come from, the legal basis for holding them, or any notice given to the people listed. An opt-out page exists on the site, but nothing captured describes how it works. 2 4 6
The DACH Sales Director
We found no statement of where the 868 million contacts come from or on what legal basis they are held; "Consent-Based Identification" with "industry-standard consent protocols" is asserted without any explanation of what that means for the database. An opt-out page exists on the site, but we found no legitimate-interest statement, no notice to the people listed, and no balancing discussion. 2 5 6
The Skeptic
For a database of 868 million contacts and 109 million personal email addresses, the captured pages never say where a single record came from or on what legal basis it is held — no source categories, no legitimate-interest statement, no notice to the people listed. The only provenance-adjacent language is data "captured with industry-standard consent protocols" on the visitor product, and an opt-out page exists, but nothing describes how the contact database itself is sourced or how data subjects are informed they are in it. 2 4 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, 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
WebID +Person identifies the person behind the visit — name, email and 37 further data points including income estimates and home ownership — and while a consent banner exists and clicking decline stops the script, the vendor's own page says a visitor who takes no action is registered as consent once the banner minimizes. I found no cookieless or consent-mode option, no consent-platform integration, and no statement on the German rule that a script like this needs consent, so I would not point this at a DACH site despite the real-time alerts and geo filters. 4 5 8
The RevOps Manager
This is person-level identification by design — first and last name, email, address, income estimates, home ownership on up to 35% of visitors — and I found no public information on the legal basis for identifying EU visitors at that level; the compliance talk on the pages is CAN-SPAM and cookie-banner shaped. The built-in banner and the fact that declining genuinely stops the script are real, but a banner that minimizes after a few seconds and counts inaction as consent is exactly what our DPO would reject, and I found no public information on a TDDDG position, cookieless operation, or EU-mode handling — the geo filtering on offer is by US state and zip code. 4 5 8
The Data Protection Officer
The product identifies individual visitors by name, email, address, employment, income estimates and home ownership, adding up to 35% of them to email lists without a form fill — person-level profiling well beyond company-level identification. The consent banner and the decline path that keeps the script from firing are the right design, but registering a visitor's inaction as consent is not valid consent under the GDPR, and we found no public information on a TDDDG position, cookieless operation, or EU-specific handling. 8 5 4
The ABM Marketer
Real-time alerts to engage high-value prospects the moment they hit the site is exactly the warm handoff I want, and a consent banner that keeps the script from firing when a visitor declines is a stated position. But identification is person-level — name, email and 37 further data points including income estimates and home ownership — rather than company-level, the 35% capture rate is stated without a method, implied consent by banner-minimize is documented behaviour, and we found no public information on cookieless operation, TDDDG treatment, or a named third-party intent source. 4 5 7 8
The DACH Sales Director
This is person-level identification — first name, last name, email plus 37 further data points including income estimates and home ownership — the most aggressive form of visitor tracking a German buyer will meet. The pages describe a consent banner and honor a decline, but they also state that when a visitor takes no action the minimized banner "registers this as consent", which no DPO in our region would accept; we found no TDDDG or EU-specific position. 4 5 8
The Skeptic
This is person-level, not company-level: name, email, address, income estimates and home ownership captured on 35% of visitors without a form fill, with the 35% asserted and no method given. The consent story is half real — decline blocks the script entirely — but implied consent that counts a minimised banner and no action as consent would not survive a German DPO, and I found no public information on the TDDDG position, cookieless operation, consent-platform integration, or any EU-specific handling; the geo filters offered are state and zip code only. 4 5 8
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
Suppression lists for legal exclusions, known customers and local filters, instant honoring of unsubscribes, and a compliance guide for automated email campaigns are guardrails my reps would genuinely feel day to day. The compliance content is built around CAN-SPAM, though, and I found no guidance on cold outreach rules in the main EU markets, no country-aware flagging of German contacts, and no checking of phone numbers against do-not-call registers. 5 7
The RevOps Manager
Suppression lists (legal, known customers, local filter) and instant removal when a prospect clicks unsubscribe are real workflow guardrails, and real-time alerts route hot prospects. But the compliance guidance on the pages is US email-shaped — CAN-SPAM, physical postal address in the footer — and I found no public information on cold-outreach rules in the main EU markets, no do-not-call register checking, and no country-aware flags, so the legal risk of every list lands entirely on my team. 4 5 7
The Data Protection Officer
Suppression lists of legal, known-customer and local types, instant unsubscribe honouring, and a physical-address requirement show outreach rules are taken seriously, but every legal reference captured is US law — CAN-SPAM — and we found no public information on German or EU cold-outreach guidance, do-not-call register checks, or country-aware flagging. Campaigns fire across email, direct mail, social and display with no per-country restriction described. 5 7 1
The ABM Marketer
Suppression lists covering legal, known-customer and local filters, instant unsubscribe honouring and CAN-SPAM support with a physical postal address requirement are genuine guardrails inside the workflow. Every compliance statement captured is US-framed though, and we found no public information on EU cold-outreach rules, do-not-call register checks, or country-aware flagging — cold comfort for the German accounts on my list. 1 5 7
The DACH Sales Director
Suppression lists (legal, known customers, local filter), instant honoring of unsubscribes and a general email-compliance guide are real compliance tooling, but the whole frame is CAN-SPAM: geo filtering is by state and zip code. We found no guidance on cold-call and email consent rules in Germany, Austria or Switzerland, and no mention of checking phone numbers against national do-not-call registers. 1 5 7
The Skeptic
The compliance effort is real but entirely American: CAN-SPAM help, a physical postal address requirement in emails, instant unsubscribe honouring, and three types of suppression list. Nothing on the captured pages addresses cold-email or cold-call consent rules in Germany or any EU market, and for a database holding 33 million cell phone numbers I found no public information on checks against do-not-call registers or country-aware flagging of contacts. 2 5 7
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
Outbound pushes to CRM, email marketing, direct mail and custom-audience platforms — carrying who the prospect is, what pages they visited and time spent — plus a platform API announced in May 2026, is more plumbing than a bare export button. I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, bidirectional sync, API limits or credit costs per call, and nothing on whether exported records may be kept after cancellation, which is the first question my finance team asks. 4 8 9
The RevOps Manager
The pages describe a one-way push that tells my CRM, email marketing system and direct mail platform who the prospect is and what pages they visited, plus a platform API announced in May 2026 — but I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, re-enrichment of existing records, bidirectional updates when someone objects, or stated API limits. Every enrichment without dedup is another duplicate I get to clean up, and nothing on the captured pages says what data I may keep after cancellation. 4 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Prospect data and visited-page detail are pushed one-way to CRM, email marketing, direct mail and custom-audience systems, and a Platform API was released in May 2026, but no captured page shows field mapping, deduplication, enrichment of existing records, API limits, or bidirectional propagation of objections. We found no public information on what happens to exported data or the buyer's access when the subscription ends. 8 9 4
The ABM Marketer
The platform pushes prospect identity, pages visited and time spent one-way to CRM, email marketing, direct mail and custom-audience systems, and a Platform API was announced in May 2026 — enough to route a signal to the account owner. Integrations are described only generically, and we found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, enrichment of existing records, API limits, or what happens to exported data after cancellation. 1 4 8 9
The DACH Sales Director
Outbound pushes to CRM, email marketing, direct mail and custom-audience platforms are described, and a Platform API was released in May 2026. No specific CRM is named, and we found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API rate limits, or what happens to exported data and access after cancellation. 1 4 8 9
The Skeptic
Pushes to CRM, email marketing, direct mail and custom-audience platforms are described, and a Platform API was released in May 2026, but nothing documents field mapping, deduplication, sync direction, or API rate limits. I found no public information on bidirectional sync, re-enrichment of existing records, or what happens to exported contacts and the buyer's access to them after cancellation. 1 8 9
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
Everything visible points to a US vendor serving a US market — CAN-SPAM guidance, state and zip code geo filtering, a 1-888 support line, and coverage broken out for the Americas — and I found no public information on the contracting entity, hosting location, or subprocessors. Nor is there any stated basis for transferring or processing EU residents' data, so a European rollout would be unreviewable from these pages. 2 5 8
The RevOps Manager
The sovereignty review came back with everything unknown — contracting entity, ownership, data residency and subprocessors — and the captured pages carry a US toll-free number, US-market contact counts and a US compliance framing. For a product that is personal data about people who never chose the vendor, I found no public information on EU hosting, an EU entity, a subprocessor list, or any transfer basis; that alone stops the purchase in my shop. 2 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Every sovereignty attribute is unresolved — contracting entity, ownership, hosting location and subprocessors are all unstated — and the only corporate signal on the captured pages is a US toll-free number, while the product processes person-level data such as income estimates on people who never chose the vendor. No EU entity, hosting, or transfer basis appears on any captured page. 8 9
The ABM Marketer
Hosting location, contracting entity and subprocessors are all unstated in the captured pages, and every marker on show — a US toll-free support line, CAN-SPAM framing, state-and-zip-only geo filtering, contact counts for the Americas only — points to a US operation; we found no public information on any EU transfer basis. For a product whose value is personal data about people who never chose it, that is as low as I score. 2 5 8
The DACH Sales Director
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where the data is hosted, or which subprocessors see it. The visible footprint is American — a 888 toll-free number, CAN-SPAM-oriented compliance pages, state and zip filtering — for a database of 868 million contacts with no transfer basis stated anywhere we could see. 2 5 9
The Skeptic
Contracting entity, hosting and subprocessors are all unstated, and the only entity signal on the captured pages is a US toll-free number. A database of 868 million contacts with no published EU entity, hosting location, subprocessor list or transfer basis sits at the floor of this criterion. 2 8
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 captured pages offer a free trial and demo booking but show no prices at all — no tiers, no credit allowances, no per-seat costs, no credit expiry, and no pricing for the API or the identification product. For a team run on monthly targets, an annual invoice I cannot compute before a sales call is a hard stop. 1 5
The RevOps Manager
No prices on any captured page — no tiers, no credit costs per email or phone number, no credit expiry, no seat pricing, no visitor-identification tiers, no API pricing; the buyer's only options are a free trial or scheduling a demo. In a category where the vendor invents the billing unit, the invoice is unknowable before the sales call, which is exactly what I refuse to sign. 1 5
The Data Protection Officer
No price, tier, credit allowance, credit cost per data type, or seat cost appears on any captured page; the commercial surface consists of a free trial and a booked demo. The annual cost of any configuration is unknowable from public information. 5 7
The ABM Marketer
We found no public prices at all — no tiers, credit costs, credit expiry or seat pricing are shown anywhere I can see, only a free trial and a booked demo. The real annual invoice is a sales conversation, which in a credit-based category means it is unknowable in advance. 1 5
The DACH Sales Director
We found no public prices at all: the captured pages offer a free trial, a live AI demo and "SCHEDULE A DEMO", but no tier prices, credit costs, credit expiry or seat pricing. Every cost component is a sales conversation, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages. 1 5 7
The Skeptic
Not one price, credit allowance, credit-expiry term, per-seat cost or API charge appears anywhere in the captured material — the pages offer a free trial and push "Schedule a demo" and a booked walkthrough with a product specialist instead. With every tier a sales conversation, the annual invoice is unknowable from public pages alone. 1 5 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | 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 Visual Visitor
Is Visual Visitor European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Visual Visitor is based.
Where does Visual Visitor store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Visual Visitor have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Visual Visitor?
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: Visual Visitor 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.
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.visualvisitor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap www.visualvisitor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap www.visualvisitor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap www.visualvisitor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap www.visualvisitor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap www.visualvisitor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap www.visualvisitor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap www.visualvisitor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap www.visualvisitor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →