FullEnrich

Name: FullEnrich
Brand: FullEnrich
Rating: 4.7 (166 reviews)

AI Native

Get more emails and phone numbers for your leads. The 1st Waterfall Enrichment platform that aggregates 20 data vendors.

Est 2024|Raised $2M|44 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 28K|Web traffic 26K|FTEs 49|HQ San Francisco, California, US

MarketsList Building & Enrichment

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Versus Apollo: Apollo is primarily an outbound platform combining prospecting, sequences, and dialing, while FullEnrich focuses on enrichment via aggregation across providers. Organizations seeking an integrated outreach platform often prefer an all-in-one vendor; organizations that already have an engagement stack and need improved match rates may prefer an aggregator/enrichment layer. - Versus ZoomInfo: ZoomInfo can be a stronger option for large enterprises that require governance, deep company intelligence, and enterprise procurement processes, typically at higher cost and annual commitment. FullEnrich may compete on price and coverage by aggregation, but enterprises should validate compliance artifacts and procurement readiness. - Versus Lusha/Cognism/Wiza: These tools may better support LinkedIn-centric workflows through active extensions and can vary regionally. FullEnrich’s waterfall model differentiates its approach, but the benefit depends on whether the waterfall yields materially more distinct sources; if most results derive from a single underlying provider, the value of aggregation is reduced.

	FullEnrich	Apollo.io	ZoomInfo
Starting Price	Entry tier in the low tens per month (credit-based; verify current tiers)	Entry tier typically in the low tens per user per month (varies)	Typically sold via annual contracts; entry packages in the mid-to-high thousands per year (varies widely)
Best For	Teams seeking waterfall-based enrichment across multiple vendors; API + operational workflows; global coverage focus	Outbound prospecting, sequences, and basic enrichment for SMB/mid-market	Enterprises needing extensive firmographics, intent data, and governance
Key Strength	Vendor reports higher match rates via multi-vendor waterfall; unlimited seats; integrations (Zapier/Make/Clay/n8n); webhook-based asynchronous API	Broad outbound workflow platform (prospecting + engagement in one)	Depth of dataset, enterprise features, and administrative controls
Key Weakness	Extension removal affects LinkedIn-based workflows; credit economics can be unfavorable for heavy phone usage; privacy allegations create compliance considerations	Can become costly when credits and add-ons accumulate; data coverage varies by region	High cost and contract rigidity; procurement-heavy

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Versus Apollo: Apollo is primarily an outbound platform combining prospecting, sequences, and dialing, while FullEnrich focuses on enrichment via aggregation across providers. Organizations seeking an integrated outreach platform often prefer an all-in-one vendor; organizations that already have an engagement stack and need improved match rates may prefer an aggregator/enrichment layer.
Versus ZoomInfo: ZoomInfo can be a stronger option for large enterprises that require governance, deep company intelligence, and enterprise procurement processes, typically at higher cost and annual commitment. FullEnrich may compete on price and coverage by aggregation, but enterprises should validate compliance artifacts and procurement readiness.
Versus Lusha/Cognism/Wiza: These tools may better support LinkedIn-centric workflows through active extensions and can vary regionally. FullEnrich’s waterfall model differentiates its approach, but the benefit depends on whether the waterfall yields materially more distinct sources; if most results derive from a single underlying provider, the value of aggregation is reduced.

	FullEnrich	Apollo.io	ZoomInfo
Starting Price	Entry tier in the low tens per month (credit-based; verify current tiers)	Entry tier typically in the low tens per user per month (varies)	Typically sold via annual contracts; entry packages in the mid-to-high thousands per year (varies widely)
Best For	Teams seeking waterfall-based enrichment across multiple vendors; API + operational workflows; global coverage focus	Outbound prospecting, sequences, and basic enrichment for SMB/mid-market	Enterprises needing extensive firmographics, intent data, and governance
Key Strength	Vendor reports higher match rates via multi-vendor waterfall; unlimited seats; integrations (Zapier/Make/Clay/n8n); webhook-based asynchronous API	Broad outbound workflow platform (prospecting + engagement in one)	Depth of dataset, enterprise features, and administrative controls
Key Weakness	Extension removal affects LinkedIn-based workflows; credit economics can be unfavorable for heavy phone usage; privacy allegations create compliance considerations	Can become costly when credits and add-ons accumulate; data coverage varies by region	High cost and contract rigidity; procurement-heavy