Email Enrichment Cost Index

Updated August 7, 2026 · 9 contact-data tools checked against their own pricing pages

6 of the 9 vendors here meter contact data in something they call a credit, and only 2 of them publish enough to tell you what a verified work email costs. 5 of the 9 publish both a price and an allowance, which gives a rate from $0.0245 to $0.1247 a credit — a 5.1-fold spread that means almost nothing, because 3 of them never say what one credit buys. Where both halves are published, 100 verified work emails cost $2.45 on Prospeo and $5.80 on FullEnrich. Everywhere else this index prints what is missing instead of a plausible number. Every figure is quoted from the vendor’s own page and dated.

A credit is not a unit. The vendors on this page use the word for genuinely different things, and several publish how many credits a plan carries without ever saying what one buys. So a price per credit is printed here wherever the arithmetic is honest, and it is never presented as a comparison of value, because it is not one until the credit is defined. A cost per found work email is computed only where the vendor publishes both halves of the sum. Everywhere else the cell says what is missing instead of reaching for a plausible number.

RangeYourself has no affiliate relationship with any vendor on this page as of August 7, 2026: every link here goes straight to the vendor’s own site and earns us nothing. We may pursue one in this category, and if we do we will say so here. Either way the ordering follows published prices, and a vendor that pays nothing is listed on exactly the same basis as one that does. See how we make money and our editorial standards.

What each vendor charges, and what it will not tell you

Ranked by the smallest paid cheque a buyer can write month to month, because that is the figure that decides whether you can start. The fourth column is the one this category avoids and the fifth is empty wherever the fourth is.

What one credit buys, vendor by vendor

This is the finding. 5 of the 9 vendors publish any definition of their own unit, and 3 put a number on finding a work email. The rest publish quantities of something they never describe. Two of the vendors that do describe it price a mobile phone number at ten times a work email, which means a credit balance tells you nothing at all until you know the mix you are buying.

One vendor sits in a state of its own worth naming: Hunter.io publishes a credit cost on the plan card itself, and the cost it publishes is for verifying an address you already have rather than finding one. Those are different purchases and this index keeps them apart, which is why no cost per found email appears for it.

The vendors whose cost per email cannot be worked out

7 of the 9, and the reason differs in every case. None of them is a criticism: publishing no price, publishing an allowance without a rate card, or metering something other than credits are all normal choices.

• Clay: Clay publishes prices and allowances but does not state how much of its allowance a found work email consumes, so its price per email cannot be worked out from its own page. Nothing is estimated for it.
• Apollo.io: Apollo.io publishes prices and allowances but does not state how much of its allowance a found work email consumes, so its price per email cannot be worked out from its own page. Nothing is estimated for it.
• Lusha: Lusha publishes prices and allowances but does not state how much of its allowance a found work email consumes, so its price per email cannot be worked out from its own page. Nothing is estimated for it.
• Cognism: Cognism publishes no price on its pricing page, so there is nothing to compute. It does publish what one credit buys, which most of this index does not. Publishing no price is a normal enterprise choice and says nothing about the product.
• RocketReach: RocketReach publishes prices and allowances but does not state how much of its allowance a found work email consumes, so its price per email cannot be worked out from its own page. Nothing is estimated for it.
• Hunter.io: Hunter.io publishes prices and allowances but does not state how much of its allowance a found work email consumes, so its price per email cannot be worked out from its own page. Nothing is estimated for it.
• ZoomInfo: ZoomInfo's pricing page could not be read, so nothing about its pricing is recorded here and nothing is computed from it.

The axis that reverses the whole ranking

3 of the 9 vendors price per seat and 3 state that users are not a priced axis at all. For one buyer that is worth nothing. For a team of three it changes the ordering of this index completely, and it is the single most consequential thing on a pricing page in this category after the credit definition itself.

One caution on that table, because it is the arithmetic most likely to go wrong quietly: at a per-seat vendor the credits usually multiply with the seats as well, so three seats cost three times as much and carry three times the allowance. The table compares what a team pays, not what it gets. For a team where one person runs all the enrichment, the per-seat vendors look considerably worse than they are.

Rollover, failed lookups, and machine-readable pricing

Three terms that change the real bill and that most of this category does not address either way. Silence is recorded as silence.

• FullEnrich: Unused credits carry for a stated number of months, and the number differs by billing term. A lookup that returns nothing is stated to cost nothing.
• Clay: The pricing page does not address whether unused actions or data credits carry into the next period. The pricing page does not state whether a lookup that returns nothing consumes anything.
• Apollo.io: The pricing page states that credits are granted upfront but does not say whether unused ones carry forward. The pricing page does not state whether a lookup that returns nothing consumes a credit.
• Lusha: Rollover is published as a cap expressed as a multiple of the monthly allowance, and only on the two middle tiers. The pricing page does not state whether a lookup that returns nothing consumes a credit.
• Cognism: The pricing page does not address whether unused credits carry forward. Re-viewing a contact already revealed is stated to consume nothing, and in the enrichment product a credit is stated to be spent again only when a detail actually changes.
• RocketReach: The pricing page does not address whether unused exports carry forward. The pricing page does not state whether a lookup that returns nothing counts against an allowance.
• Hunter.io: Subscription credits are monthly, but credits bought outright through the data platform carry a stated life. The pricing page does not state whether a search that returns nothing consumes a credit.
• Prospeo: Unused credits are stated to carry into the next billing cycle and to be added on top of the fresh allowance. Exports are stated to cost a credit per email found and nothing when no email is found; browsing and searching consume nothing.
• ZoomInfo: Not readable. Not readable.

One vendor in this index publishes a machine-readable copy of its own rate card: FullEnrich, at https://fullenrich.com/pricing.md. It is where this index’s complete tier table for that vendor came from, and it is a genuinely useful thing to publish in a category where most tier tables live behind a slider.

Vendor-stated details worth knowing before you buy

Each of these comes from the vendor’s own page or is a plain reading of what it publishes. None is a claim about data quality or coverage.

• FullEnrich: The machine-readable pricing document states two different last-updated dates for itself: one inside its own JSON block and a later one in its closing metadata. Both are published here and neither is adopted; the tier figures agree with the interactive page either way.
• FullEnrich: The document it points to as a JSON companion returns HTTP 404, so the plain-text version is the only machine-readable copy that resolves.
• FullEnrich: A mobile phone number costs ten times what a work email costs, so a credit total means nothing until the mix of data types is known.
• FullEnrich: The published find rate is the vendor's own claim about its own service and is quoted rather than verified.
• Clay: A Clay plan price is two subscriptions added together. The advertised figure for each paid tier is exactly its actions price plus its data-credits price, and either can be raised independently, so the headline is a floor for a specific pair of choices rather than the plan's price.
• Clay: The two currencies are not interchangeable. Actions pay for orchestration Clay performs; data credits pay for data bought from other companies through Clay.
• Clay: Clay states that bringing your own API keys removes data-credit cost entirely, which means the same workflow can cost two very different amounts on the same plan.
• Clay: The page loads with annual billing preselected, so the figure a buyer reads first assumes a twelve-month commitment.
• Apollo.io: Apollo publishes how many credits each tier carries and never publishes what one buys. The only dollar value it puts on a credit anywhere on the page is inside the fair-use rule for its unlimited plans.
• Apollo.io: The annual toggle carries a single saving badge, but the saving is not the same on every tier: it holds on the cheapest paid tier and is several points lower on the two above it, by arithmetic on Apollo's own eight published figures.
• Apollo.io: The top self-serve tier shows one figure under the annual selector and a higher one under the monthly selector while simultaneously being labelled annual only. Both figures are published here and neither is adopted.
• Apollo.io: There are at least two kinds of credit. Export credits are defined separately in the page's own FAQ and are consumed by moving a contact out of Apollo.
• Apollo.io: Prices are stated before tax.
• Lusha: The discounts on the page are presented as a time-limited sale on annual plans, and the struck-through figure each is measured against is that tier's own month-to-month price. So the advertised saving is the annual commitment discount, named as a sale.
• Lusha: The saving is not one number: the page states a different percentage on each of the three paid tiers, and its headline quotes the largest.
• Lusha: Lusha publishes credit allowances and no definition of a credit anywhere on the pricing page.
• Lusha: Rollover is capped at twice the monthly allowance, is published on two tiers only, and the top tier's row reads that it does not apply.
• Cognism: Cognism publishes no dollar figure of any kind. That is a normal enterprise choice and nothing here treats it as a fault; it simply means no Cognism price appears on this site.
• Cognism: It does publish the thing most of its competitors do not, which is what a credit is, and its answer is the simplest in the category: one credit reveals one contact.
• Cognism: Its API is not sold on its own. The page states API access requires a prospecting seat.
• RocketReach: The unlimited on every RocketReach annual card describes lookups. The number that limits what you can actually take out of the product is the export cap beside it, and it is a fixed figure on all three tiers.
• RocketReach: No month-to-month dollar price appears anywhere on the page, even though the page's own comparison table has a monthly billing column with different allowances in it. So the three prices published are annual prices shown as monthly equivalents.
• RocketReach: Additional seats carry a stated discount and no stated price.
• Hunter.io: Hunter is the only vendor here that puts a credit cost on the card, and the cost it puts there is for verifying an address. Finding one is priced from the same credit pool at an amount the page does not state.
• Hunter.io: Repeated work is metered generously and Hunter says so: the same search or verification is counted once in a calendar month however many times it runs.
• Hunter.io: The data platform is a separate purchase from the subscription, priced by buying credits outright, and those credits carry a stated twelve-month life.
• Prospeo: Prospeo prices per user, so a two-person team pays twice the published figure and gets twice the credits. Two of the vendors it competes with charge nothing for seats at all.
• Prospeo: The annual saving is stated as a single percentage and the four published pairs are consistent with it, unlike several competitors in this index.
• Prospeo: A mobile number costs ten times a work email, the same ratio the anchor of this index publishes, so a credit total says nothing until the mix is known.
• ZoomInfo: ZoomInfo's pricing page could not be read. That is a statement about what happened when the URL was requested, twice, in two different ways, and nothing more: it is not a claim that ZoomInfo hides its pricing, and a bot check is a normal thing for a large site to run.
• ZoomInfo: Because nothing was read, no ZoomInfo figure appears anywhere on RangeYourself. The figures circulating elsewhere are not sourced to ZoomInfo and are not repeated here.

How this index is verified

Every figure on this page was read from the vendor’s own pricing page and is stored with that page’s URL, a verbatim quote, and the date it was checked (most recent: August 7, 2026). 5 of these 9 pages render prices client-side and were read in a browser at the same URL, with each billing option selected in turn. One page could not be read at all: the URL serves a bot check, and RangeYourself does not attempt bot checks. No figure for ZoomInfo appears anywhere on this site as a result, including the figures that circulate elsewhere. Where a vendor publishes an allowance without saying what one unit of it buys, we print the allowance and stop, because dividing a price by an undefined quantity produces a number that looks like a comparison and is not one. Totals are arithmetic on two published figures and nothing else. See our editorial standards and how we verify.

Which vendors are in it. The contact-data and enrichment tools an English-speaking buyer is most likely to shortlist, chosen before any price was read and not filtered afterwards. A vendor that publishes no price stays in with that recorded as its finding, because who publishes what is the thing this index exists to show, and the one vendor whose page could not be read at all stays in with that recorded too.

The rule about credits. A credit is not a unit. It is a word nine vendors use for nine different things, and a price per credit is meaningless without the vendor's own statement of what one buys. This index therefore ranks on the published price and on the published credit allowance separately, and computes a cost per found work email ONLY for vendors that publish both a price and the number of credits a found work email costs. Where a vendor publishes an allowance and no definition, the allowance is printed and no per-email figure is constructed for it.

What the scenario is. Chosen before any figure was read: the smallest unit of work in this category that every vendor in it sells, and the one a buyer can price in their head. The cost is the vendor's own credits-per-found-work-email times 100, priced at the vendor's own cheapest published paid month-to-month rate per credit. It is arithmetic on two published figures and nothing else, and it is left uncomputed wherever either figure is missing. It excludes tax where a vendor states its prices exclude it, any seat beyond the first, personal emails, mobile phone numbers and every other data type, all of which several vendors price differently from a work email.

Frequently asked questions

What a data enrichment credit actually buys · Enrichment tools under $50 a month · How much does FullEnrich cost? · Is FullEnrich worth it? · FullEnrich vs Clay