Lead Generation
WiredMinds LeadLab
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by WiredMinds GmbH · wiredminds.de
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
WiredMinds LeadLab, from WiredMinds GmbH in Karlsruhe, part of the Dealfront Group, identifies by name which companies visit a website, and visitor identification is where the bench scores highest at 6 to 7: cookie-free operation is documented, and each visitor's IP address is matched against a firm database by whitelist and deleted after the match. Weakest is CRM sync and export, scored 1 across the board — the only public statement is that LeadLab integrates easily into external systems, with no CRM named and no API documented. Data coverage holds at 2 throughout: we found no public information on record counts, country breakdown or refresh cadence, only assertions of high detection rates. The genuine split is sovereignty, running 4 to 7: judges credit a verifiable German controller, Hetzner hosting in Gunzenhausen and a published German data processing agreement, weighed against unnamed databases behind the KI-Leads and Google services on the vendor's own site resting on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. No prices appear on the captured pages; the trial is a full version that ends automatically.
Speaks for it
- Identifies visiting companies by name, cookie-free, with the visitor IP matched against a firm database by whitelist and deleted after the match.
- Documented filters, scorings, behavioral data, heatmaps and touchpoint analyses for judging visit depth per company.
- German contracting entity and controller — WiredMinds GmbH, Karlsruhe, registered at Amtsgericht Stuttgart under HRB 753984 — with a German-language data processing agreement published.
- Hosting named as Hetzner Online GmbH in Gunzenhausen under a processing agreement, with the policy stating no transfer to a third country for that service.
- Free full-version trial that ends automatically, with no cancellation needed.
Held against it
- Integration is documented only as one sentence on easy connection to external systems; we found no public information on named CRMs, an API, export formats or post-cancellation data retention.
- We found no public information on record counts, per-country or DACH coverage, or a refresh cadence; quality rests on asserted high detection rates verified by self-developed algorithms and AI.
- Provenance rests on one claim — GDPR-compliant enterprise databases said not to be subject to individual privacy law — with no named source categories, legal basis or notice to the people in the data.
- We found no public information on suppression, do-not-contact handling or guidance on lawful outreach, so the legal risk of campaigns stays with the customer.
- No tier, credit or seat prices are public; cost comes through the contact form, live chat or a booked consultation.
Best for
- You sell to businesses in the German market and want companies identified by name as they visit your site, with visit depth, filters, scorings and heatmaps.
- Your data protection officer reviews any tracker before it ships, and a cookie-free design in which the IP is deleted after the whitelist match is what will be examined.
- Your procurement requires a German contracting entity and controller, hosting in Germany and a German-language data processing agreement.
- You want a full-version trial on your own website that ends automatically, with no cancellation needed.
Avoid if
- You need a named CRM integration, API documentation or defined export and retention terms before a tool touches your pipeline.
- You size a vendor's database by record counts, per-country coverage or a stated refresh cadence before committing.
- Your outbound process depends on suppression lists, do-not-call screening or vendor guidance on what German law lets you send or dial.
- You must document the source and legal basis of every record you prospect — the published sourcing claim names no sources.
The scores
Coverage, accuracy & freshness
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How much of the target market the database actually covers — judged on DACH and EU coverage as much as North American — and what the vendor documents about verification and refresh, because accuracy claims cannot be checked from outside.
0 — No stated coverage, no refresh cadence, no verification method; accuracy asserted as a percentage with nothing behind it.
3 — Headline record counts for the whole database, thin or unstated European coverage, and no description of how often records are re-verified.
5 — Coverage stated per country or region including DACH, email verification described, a stated refresh cadence, and firmographics beyond name and domain.
8 — Coverage broken down by country, industry and data type (email, direct dial, mobile), verification method and refresh cadence documented, company data drawn from official registers where available, and a bounce or credit-back guarantee with stated terms.
10 — The vendor is accountable for its data: per-country coverage and accuracy methodology published, every field carrying a last-verified date visible to the user, register-sourced company data, and credit-back terms that make inaccuracy the vendor's cost rather than the buyer's.
The SDR Team Lead
Coverage is asserted rather than documented: I found no public information on record counts, per-country or DACH coverage figures, or how often records are re-verified, and accuracy rests on 'Hohe Erkennungsraten, verlässliche Datenqualität' plus verification 'mittels selbstentwickelter Algorithmen und Künstlicher Intelligenz'. Company fields are named (name, zip, location, size, industry, decision-maker data) and 'internationale Unternehmensdaten' suggests reach beyond Germany, but we found no public information on email or direct-dial coverage or credit-back terms for bad data. That is thin to plan eight SDRs' lists against. 1 2 9
The RevOps Manager
Identification fields go beyond name and domain — company size, industry, location and decision-maker data are named, with international company data and a verification claim resting on the vendor's own algorithms and AI. We found no public information on database size, per-country coverage including DACH and North America, a refresh cadence, or credit-back terms for inaccurate data, so accuracy rests on assertion. 1 2 9
The Data Protection Officer
No database size, no country breakdown and no refresh cadence appear anywhere in the captures; verification is asserted as self-developed algorithms and artificial intelligence and quality as high detection rates with nothing behind either. The identified fields do go beyond name and domain — industry, company size, postcode, decision-maker data — which is the only substance here. 1 2 9
The ABM Marketer
What is documented is the shape of the record — company name, zip code, location, company size, industry, decision-maker data — plus a verification claim built on self-developed algorithms and AI, and international company data asserted without any per-country figures. We found no public information on refresh cadence, record counts, or anything behind the 'high detection rates' claim. For a German-market tool I can see the DACH focus but cannot tell how deep the coverage actually runs. 1 2 9
The DACH Sales Director
Identified companies arrive with name, zip, location, size, industry and decision-maker data, but coverage is offered only as "internationale Unternehmensdaten nach höchsten Standards" — no record counts, no per-country figures for Germany, Austria or Switzerland, and no stated coverage of the Mittelstand registers I sell into. Verification is asserted as self-developed algorithms, AI and "hohe Erkennungsraten" with no method or refresh cadence behind it. 1 2 9
The Skeptic
This is identification software, not a documented database: the captured pages show no record counts, no per-country coverage, no refresh cadence and no re-verification schedule. Verification is asserted as "selbstentwickelter Algorithmen und Künstlicher Intelligenz" and quality as "hohe Erkennungsraten, verlässliche Datenqualität" — claims with no figure or method behind them. 1 2 9
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
Sources appear only in general terms — 'DSGVO-konforme Enterprise-Datenbanken, die nicht dem Datenschutz von Einzelpersonen unterliegen' — with the '100% GDPR compliant' claim backed by independent lawyer review rather than named sources or a balancing test. Data subjects can object by email to datenschutz@wiredminds.de and website visitors get an opt-out cookie, but we found no public information on an Art. 14 notice to people whose decision-maker data is delivered, or a self-service removal process. The engineering is genuine — IP addresses are matched against a whitelist and deleted before storage — but the provenance of the delivered company and decision-maker records stays undocumented. 2 3 9
The RevOps Manager
Sources are described only in general terms — GDPR-conform enterprise databases that are said not to be subject to individual privacy law — and we found no public information on named source categories or the lawful basis for the decision-maker data the product surfaces. Objection runs through an opt-out link for tracked website visitors and the data protection officer's mailbox otherwise; we found no public information on a self-service removal process for database records, an Article 14 notice practice, or a published balancing test. 2 3 9
The Data Protection Officer
Sources are described only as GDPR-compliant enterprise databases that supposedly are not subject to the privacy of individuals — asserted, not shown — with no named source categories and no legitimate-interest balancing for the decision-maker data enriched onto visits. For the people in that database we found no public information on a dedicated notice for them or a self-service removal route; the only route shown is an objection email, and the opt-out cookie addresses website tracking rather than database records. 2 3 9 11
The ABM Marketer
The contact-database side rests on a single assertion — 'DSGVO-konforme Enterprise-Datenbanken, die nicht dem Datenschutz von Einzelpersonen unterliegen' — sources in general terms with no balancing test, and we found no public information on an Art. 14 notice or a self-service route for people in those databases beyond emailing the data protection coordinator. The visitor side is genuinely stronger: the IP is matched against a whitelist and deleted, behavior is recorded only after a natural-versus-legal-person check, and an opt-out link is required on every tracked site. 2 3 9
The DACH Sales Director
The story is coherent — GDPR-compliant enterprise databases "die nicht dem Datenschutz von Einzelpersonen unterliegen", plus a natural-versus-legal-person check before any recording — but the databases themselves are unnamed and no legitimate-interest balancing or notice-to-the-people practice is described anywhere I can see. Points for a genuinely self-service objection route: the opt-out cookie and the Widerspruchslink every customer site must carry. 2 3 8 9
The Skeptic
The only source statement for the decision-maker data is that "DSGVO-konforme Enterprise-Datenbanken" are used which the pages say fall outside individual privacy law — an assertion, not a source category, and no legal basis for those records is named. The opt-out and IP-deletion mechanics that are documented serve website visitors being tracked; we found no public information on any route for a decision-maker in the firm database to find, object to or remove their record. 1 2 3 9
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
This is the product's core and it is documented well: company-level identification by name with industry, size and location, a natural-versus-legal-person check before anything is recorded, IP matched against a firm database and deleted, and cookie-free operation stated on several pages. Intent signals are first-party and page-level — visitor flow by country, campaign and referrer, heatmaps, on-site search phrases — with real-time notifications into Microsoft Teams when a target company shows up. We found no public information on consent-management-platform integration or an explicit TDDDG statement, which keeps it short of the top. 1 3 7 9 11
The RevOps Manager
Company-level identification is the product and it is cookieless by design: the visitor's IP is read, matched against the firm database by a whitelist method and then deleted, and a check whether the visitor is a natural or legal person runs before behaviour is recorded. Page-level signals are strong — visitor flow, click paths, heatmaps, scorings — and visit notifications reach Microsoft Teams and Salesforce. We found no public information on consent-management-platform integration or a named third-party source behind the firm-data enrichment via external AI systems. 2 3 7 9 11
The Data Protection Officer
Identification is company-level by design — the stated process checks whether a visitor is a natural or a legal person before any behaviour is recorded — the IP address is matched against a whitelist company database and then deleted, the technology runs cookie-free with only technically necessary cookies, and alerts route into Microsoft Teams. Customer sites must carry a data-protection text and opt-out link; we found no public information on consent-management-platform integration or a specific published position on the consent requirement for device access under German telemedia law. 3 8 9 11
The ABM Marketer
Company-level identification with company name, zip, location, size, industry and full visiting behavior is exactly what I run against my target list, and the design is documented cookie-free with the IP deleted after a whitelist match and a natural-versus-legal-person check before anything is recorded — plus real-time Microsoft Teams notifications so the visit reaches the owner while it is warm. Page-level signals are rich (click paths, internal search phrases, heatmaps, scorings, filters), but every intent signal is first-party: we found no public information on a named third-party intent source, and no explicit TDDDG statement, only a published GDPR position reviewed by independent privacy lawyers. 2 3 9 11
The DACH Sales Director
Company-level by design — the natural-person check runs before anything is recorded — and the cookie-free claim, the IP deletion after the whitelist match and review by independent privacy lawyers are all documented, which is what a German DPO will ask for first. Alerts land in Microsoft Teams and click-path reports exist; we found no public information on consent-management-platform integration, a named third-party intent source, or the basis for the "Verknüpfungen zu externen KI-Systemen". 1 2 3 9 11
The Skeptic
Company-level identification with filters and scorings, per-company visit history, click-path and search-phrase signals, cookieless operation stated, the IP deleted after the whitelist match, and a natural-versus-legal-person check before any behavior is recorded — a design a DPO can actually read, plus visit alerts into Teams. It stays below the top because no integration with consent management platforms is evidenced, no third-party intent source is named, and the captured pages give different statements on cookies ("cookie-free" versus "no cookies that are not technically necessary"). 1 2 3 7 9 11
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
Filters and scorings exist for selecting B2B firm data, and the vendor pushes real tracking hygiene onto customers — a privacy text plus a mandatory opt-out link, embedding guides for WordPress and Typo3, and a data processing contract to sign. But that is compliance for tracking, not for outreach: we found no public information on do-not-contact suppression, country-aware flagging of German contacts, or guidance on cold-email and cold-call rules, and the general terms are public only as 'Stand 01.11.2022' without captured outreach clauses. As someone running cold outreach in Germany, I would be carrying that legal risk alone. 2 5 8 9
The RevOps Manager
The captured pages show B2B firm data selectable by criteria, standard filters, and an order-processing contract that regulates the scope and duration of collection. We found no public information on guidance for cold outreach rules in German or EU markets, a global suppression or do-not-contact list, do-not-call register checks, or country-aware flagging of contacts — the legal risk of outreach sits with the customer as far as these pages show. 2 5 9
The Data Protection Officer
The pages show selection criteria on B2B firm data, filters, scorings, reports and KI-Leads or Lookalikes to fill the pipeline. We found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, on cold-outreach rules in the German or other EU markets, or on any share of compliance responsibility the vendor takes once contacts leave the product. 1 2
The ABM Marketer
Selection exists — additional B2B firm data selectable by my criteria, with KI-Leads and lookalikes to extend the pipeline — but we found no public information on suppression or do-not-contact lists, on guidance for cold outreach rules in Germany or other EU markets, on country-aware flagging, or on how opt-outs from outreach are handled. Everything documented about opt-outs concerns the tracking script on my website, not what I may lawfully do with the contacts I pull. 1 2 8
The DACH Sales Director
Forcing the buyer's site to carry a privacy text and opt-out link before tracking runs is compliance built into the product, more than a bare export button — but that protects the tracking, not the outreach. We found no public information on a do-not-contact or suppression list, do-not-call register checks, or any guidance on what a German buyer may lawfully do with the identified contacts under UWG §7. 2 8 9
The Skeptic
Selection criteria for the KI-Leads firm data are shown, but nothing in the captured pages addresses what a buyer may lawfully do with the contacts — no guidance on cold outreach rules in the EU markets, no suppression or do-not-contact list, no country-aware flags. The compliance workflow the vendor documents concerns the tracking script: the customer must insert the privacy text and opt-out link themselves. 2 8 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 — 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
Salesforce is named as a real integration — company visitors visible in Salesforce Cloud, worked as lead or opportunity — and a no-code 'LeadLab Zap' promises connection to CRM, CMS and marketing automation tools, with a REST API page in the help centre. But we found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, bidirectional sync or API limits, and nothing on the captured pages says what happens to synced or exported data when the subscription ends. Good enough to pipe website alerts to my reps; not enough to treat our CRM as the system of record. 2 10 11
The RevOps Manager
Integrations read broad on paper — Salesforce with visitors visible as leads and opportunities, a no-code LeadLab Zap into CRM, CMS and marketing automation, a REST API help page, and Teams notifications. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, scheduled re-enrichment, bidirectional propagation of updates or objections into synced records, API limits, or which data a customer may keep after cancellation — as the person who cleans the CRM, that missing half is what decides whether this touches my records. 2 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
Fully integrated solutions for leading CRM systems, Salesforce integration with company visitors visible in Salesforce Cloud, and a no-code LeadLab Zap into CRM, CMS and marketing automation are evidenced, and a help page for a REST API exists. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, enrichment of existing CRM records, API limits, or whether exported data may be kept after cancellation — exactly where the customer becomes the controller and needs answers. 10 11
The ABM Marketer
Salesforce is evidenced concretely — company visitors appear in the Salesforce cloud and can be worked as lead or opportunity — alongside 'fully integrated solutions for leading CRM systems', a no-code connector into CRM, CMS and marketing automation, and a REST API documented in the help center. But we found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, enrichment of existing records, bidirectional sync, API limits, or what happens to exported data and my access when the subscription ends. 10 11
The DACH Sales Director
Salesforce leads and opportunities, no-code integration into CRM, CMS and marketing automation via the LeadLab Zap, and a REST API help page give a workable pipe into the systems sales actually uses. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API limits or pricing per call, bidirectional re-enrichment, or what happens to exported data once the subscription ends. 2 10 11
The Skeptic
Salesforce is named with company visitors pushed in as leads or opportunities, a no-code "LeadLab Zap" claims integration into CRM, CMS and marketing automation, and a REST API help page exists — but we found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, API limits, re-enrichment, or what happens to exported data when the subscription ends. 2 10 11
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where a database of EU residents' personal data is held, who the contracting entity and controller are, and which subprocessors see it. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted heavily here, because the product itself is personal data about people who never chose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and EU residents' contact data processed outside the EU with no stated transfer basis.
3 — Non-EU contracting entity with an EU representative under Art. 27, or EU hosting offered while enrichment, support or AI processing stay non-EU.
5 — EU contracting entity and EU hosting as standard, but parts of the chain — data partners, enrichment sources, tracking infrastructure — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU contracting entity and controller, EU hosting on named infrastructure, subprocessor and data-partner list published, and any non-EU transfer named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, controller, hosting, data partners and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a DPA covering both the customer's data and the database records the customer exports.
The SDR Team Lead
The contracting entity and controller are WiredMinds GmbH in Karlsruhe with a Stuttgart registry number, hosting sits with Hetzner Online in Gunzenhausen under a published processing agreement, and a published subprocessor list names Userlike in Cologne and Microsoft Ireland alongside Google services with the EU-US Data Privacy Framework cited for reCAPTCHA. The captured privacy pages state 'Es findet keine Übertragung in ein Drittland statt', though that hosting and subprocessor detail covers the vendor's own website rather than the LeadLab product chain, and Dealfront group ownership leaves the group's domicile unstated. European through and through at the entity and hosting level, but we found no public information on the data partners or subprocessors serving the identification database itself. 1 3 4 5
The RevOps Manager
WiredMinds GmbH is a German contracting entity and controller with named Hetzner hosting in Gunzenhausen, a German supervisory authority, an order-processing contract with the host, and a statement that no transfer to a third country takes place. The parent Dealfront group's domicile is left unstated and we found no public information on ownership, on an explicit hosting region for LeadLab product data rather than the vendor's own website, on product-level subprocessor and data-partner lists, or on where the unnamed external AI systems behind firm-data enrichment sit. 2 3 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
WiredMinds GmbH of Karlsruhe is both contracting entity and named controller, registered at Amtsgericht Stuttgart, hosting with Hetzner Online GmbH in Gunzenhausen under a data-processing agreement, with the privacy policy stating no transfer to a third country and the Google reCAPTCHA transfer covered by EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification. The no-third-country statement is scoped to data collected on the vendor's own website rather than an explicit hosting region for product customer data, and we found no public information on the DealFront group's domicile, the enrichment enterprise databases, or product-level subprocessors. 3 4 9
The ABM Marketer
WiredMinds GmbH is the named controller, registered at Amtsgericht Stuttgart, hosting with Hetzner in Gunzenhausen under an AVV, with 'Es findet keine Übertragung in ein Drittland statt' and a published subprocessor list in which the named US service reCAPTCHA carries EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification. The open edges: the captured hosting statement covers the vendor's own website rather than LeadLab customer data specifically, the group owner DealFront's domicile is unstated, and Google Analytics and YouTube appear on the list as non-EU processors. 1 3 4
The DACH Sales Director
The German spine is solid: a GmbH with an Amtsgericht Stuttgart register number, a German controller and DPO, Hetzner hosting in Gunzenhausen with a German-language AVV, and the Baden-Württemberg supervisory authority named. It stops short of end-to-end: the "keine Übertragung in ein Drittland" statement covers the vendor's own website rather than LeadLab customer data, the DealFront group's domicile and the enterprise data partners go unnamed, and Google services appear in the chain albeit with DPF certification claimed for reCAPTCHA. 1 3 4 5
The Skeptic
A German GmbH as contracting entity and controller, hosting named as Hetzner in Gunzenhausen under a processing agreement, and a published processor list are solid — but that list covers the vendor's own website, and the Dealfront group's domicile is unstated. We found no public information stating where LeadLab product and customer data is hosted, and the "keine Übertragung in ein Drittland" statement sits alongside named US processors such as Google Analytics, with the Data Privacy Framework cited only for reCAPTCHA. 1 3 4 5
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone — including credits per email, phone number and mobile, credit expiry, seat pricing, visitor-identification tiers and the API — in a category where the unit of billing is often invented by the vendor.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A monthly headline exists, but what a credit buys, whether credits expire, or the cost of an additional seat is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with credit allowances given, but at least one commonly needed piece (mobile numbers, extra seats, API access, CRM sync) is unpriced or behind a sales call.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with credits per data type, credit expiry and rollover, per-seat costs, overage rates, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: the annual invoice derivable for a given number of seats, exported contacts by data type, identified companies and API calls, with every credit cost and the refund rule for inaccurate data published.
The SDR Team Lead
The only public pricing information is the trial: four weeks of the full version on your own website, ending automatically with no cancellation needed. Tier prices, per-seat costs and licence terms are a sales conversation, and we found no public information on credits, expiry or VAT treatment anywhere in the captured pages. I can pilot it free with my team, but I cannot put a number on the annual invoice. 2 11
The RevOps Manager
The captured pricing page presents features and a four-week full-version trial that ends automatically with no cancellation needed, which is genuinely useful trial transparency. We found no public information on tier prices, per-seat costs, credit or licence units, minimum terms or VAT treatment, so the real annual invoice is not computable from public pages and every cost question is a sales conversation. 2 11
The Data Protection Officer
The only priced element on the captured pages is a free four-week full-version trial that ends automatically. We found no public information on tier prices, credit costs, seat pricing or minimum terms, so no buyer can compute an invoice from what is published. 2 11
The ABM Marketer
The only public price-adjacent fact is the trial — 'Test 4 weeks full version', 28 days of the full version, ending automatically with no cancellation needed. Beyond that we found no public information on tier prices, seat costs, contact or credit pricing, minimum term or VAT treatment, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages. 2 11
The DACH Sales Director
The only thing priced in public is the trial: "Test 4 weeks full version", free, ending automatically with no cancellation needed — that much is honest. Beyond it we found no public prices, no tiers, no credit model and no seat costs, so a Mittelstand buyer cannot compute the annual invoice without a sales conversation. 2 11
The Skeptic
The captured pages show no price at all — no tiers, no per-contact or per-seat cost, no minimum term, no VAT treatment; anything beyond the trial is a sales conversation. The one public term is genuinely useful: "Test 4 weeks full version" that "ends automatically, keine Kündigung nötig". 2 11
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 | Incorporated in DE ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 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. The page names no country; DE is derived from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart commercial register and the Karlsruhe address, while '(Part of DealFront Group)' leaves the group's domicile unstated.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The statement covers data collected on the vendor's own website (visits, registration, newsletter, contact form); an explicit hosting region for LeadLab product/customer data is not stated.
- 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.
- 4 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
- 3 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
- 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 hosting 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
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage wiredminds.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page wiredminds.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy wiredminds.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice wiredminds.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service wiredminds.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Data sources & lawful basis — found from sitemap help.wiredminds.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap help.wiredminds.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap help.wiredminds.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap wiredminds.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap help.wiredminds.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap wiredminds.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →