The Org

Name: The Org
Brand: The Org
Rating: 3.5 (40 reviews)

Transparency starts here

Est 2017|Valuation $11M|Raised $33.3M|177 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 5K|Web traffic 2.9M|FTEs 21|HQ New York, New York, US

MarketsAccount Research

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

How The Org positions itself - The vendor emphasizes organizational-structure transparency and reporting-line context for targeting and recruiting. - Developer and API documentation indicate an intent to position the product as an org-chart data layer as well as an end-user application. Where competitors may outperform - ZoomInfo: broader enterprise data suite with intent signals and enrichment, and a more established enterprise procurement and security posture, typically at higher cost. - Apollo.io: broader integrated outbound engagement for teams seeking list creation, sequencing, and dialing in one product. - Lusha: focused on quick access to contact details via credits; less emphasis on org-chart depth. Customer-facing comparative claims on vendor pages should be validated through trials and third-party reviews. Market adoption trends (high-level) Vendor-published user and inventory figures suggest broad top-of-funnel adoption; without independent verification these figures do not confirm enterprise penetration.

	The Org	ZoomInfo	Apollo.io
Starting Price	Free; entry tier at low tens per seat per month (annual billing); mid-tier at mid tens per seat per month (annual billing)	Quote-based; commonly reported as high-cost enterprise pricing (varies widely by package)	Free; paid plans commonly reported at mid‑tens per user per month (annual billing)
Recommended use cases	Org-chart context, targeted outreach, researching reporting lines	Large-scale sales intelligence, enrichment, intent and broad data suite	Prospecting plus sequencing and engagement workflows
Key advantage	Visual org charts and structured positions data; comparatively lower entry-level pricing as stated by vendor	Breadth of data, enrichment and enterprise feature set	Integrated outbound workflows and engagement tooling
Key weakness	Potential gaps in seniority modeling; limited public documentation for enterprise security controls; reported credit/entitlement disputes	Higher cost; complex contracts and credit models; heavier implementation	Security/admin features gated to higher tiers in some plans; credit model complexity

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

How The Org positions itself

The vendor emphasizes organizational-structure transparency and reporting-line context for targeting and recruiting.
Developer and API documentation indicate an intent to position the product as an org-chart data layer as well as an end-user application.

Where competitors may outperform

ZoomInfo: broader enterprise data suite with intent signals and enrichment, and a more established enterprise procurement and security posture, typically at higher cost.
Apollo.io: broader integrated outbound engagement for teams seeking list creation, sequencing, and dialing in one product.
Lusha: focused on quick access to contact details via credits; less emphasis on org-chart depth.

Customer-facing comparative claims on vendor pages should be validated through trials and third-party reviews.

Market adoption trends (high-level) Vendor-published user and inventory figures suggest broad top-of-funnel adoption; without independent verification these figures do not confirm enterprise penetration.

	The Org	ZoomInfo	Apollo.io
Starting Price	Free; entry tier at low tens per seat per month (annual billing); mid-tier at mid tens per seat per month (annual billing)	Quote-based; commonly reported as high-cost enterprise pricing (varies widely by package)	Free; paid plans commonly reported at mid‑tens per user per month (annual billing)
Recommended use cases	Org-chart context, targeted outreach, researching reporting lines	Large-scale sales intelligence, enrichment, intent and broad data suite	Prospecting plus sequencing and engagement workflows
Key advantage	Visual org charts and structured positions data; comparatively lower entry-level pricing as stated by vendor	Breadth of data, enrichment and enterprise feature set	Integrated outbound workflows and engagement tooling
Key weakness	Potential gaps in seniority modeling; limited public documentation for enterprise security controls; reported credit/entitlement disputes	Higher cost; complex contracts and credit models; heavier implementation	Security/admin features gated to higher tiers in some plans; credit model complexity