What a Data Enrichment Credit Actually Buys

Updated August 7, 2026 · 9 vendors checked against their own pricing pages

6 of the 9 vendors here meter something they call a credit, and no two of them mean quite the same thing by the word. 5 of the 9 publish a definition at all. 3 put a number on finding a work email, and 2 of those price a mobile phone number at exactly ten times it. One publishes what verifying an address costs and never what finding one costs. One meters two separate currencies at the same time. And 3 publish how many credits each plan carries without ever describing the unit. Published rates run from $0.0245 to $0.1247 a credit — a 5.1-fold spread that cannot be read as a comparison of value, because for most of that range the thing being counted has no published definition.

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.

Every published definition, side by side

Ranked by cheapest paid entry, so the ordering matches the cost index. The columns that matter are the middle three, and the blanks in them are the point of the page.

The one number two vendors agree on

FullEnrich and Prospeo both state that a found work email costs one credit and a direct mobile phone number costs ten, and they publish it in different places — one on a rate card and one in a pricing FAQ. A third vendor, Cognism, states the same one-credit figure for a contact without pricing a phone number separately at all. Those are the only per-record figures any vendors in this index agree on.

• FullEnrich: “- Work email = **1 credit** - Personal email = **3 credits** - Mobile phone = **10 credits** - Reverse email lookup = **1 credit**”
• Prospeo: “One credit gives you one verified business email, while a direct mobile number costs 10 credits.”

The practical consequence is worth stating plainly, because it is the thing most likely to blow a budget in this category: a credit allowance tells you nothing until you know your mix. At a ten-to-one ratio the same allowance buys ten times as many work emails as mobile numbers, so a plan sized for one is wildly wrong for the other. On FullEnrich’s cheapest paid tier that is 500 credits: 500 work emails, or 50 mobile numbers.

Finding an address and verifying one are different purchases

Hunter.io is the only vendor here that prints a credit cost on the plan card itself, and the figure it prints is for verification: “Verify email: 0.5 credit”. What finding an address costs from the same credit pool is not stated anywhere on the page. Both operations draw on one balance, so the published half genuinely constrains the bill — it just does not answer the question a buyer of enrichment is asking. This site therefore publishes no cost per found email for Hunter.io, and treats the published verification figure as what it is.

The vendors that do not sell credits at all

One vendor in this index meters something else entirely, which makes any credit comparison with it meaningless rather than difficult.

• RocketReach: meters lookup and exports. There are no credits. Annual plans state unlimited lookups and a fixed number of exports a year; monthly plans state a fixed number of each. The export is the binding constraint on the annual plans. Its own words: “Unlimited personal & professional emails 1,200 Exports Per Year”

The vendor that defines the unit and publishes no price

Cognism is the exact inverse of most of this category. Its pricing page names two packages, states how many seats each includes, explains what a credit is in one sentence — “1 credit = 1 revealed contact” — adds that re-viewing a contact already revealed costs nothing, and contains no dollar figure anywhere. Publishing no price is a normal enterprise choice and nothing here treats it as a fault. It does mean no Cognism price appears on this site, and it also means Cognism publishes the one thing most of its priced competitors do not.

The page that could not be read

ZoomInfo’s pricing page returns HTTP 403 to a plain request, and loading the same URL in an ordinary browser returns a challenge page whose title is “Access to this page has been denied” and whose only content asks the visitor to hold a button to prove they are not a bot. RangeYourself does not attempt bot checks, so nothing about ZoomInfo’s pricing has been read and nothing is recorded. That is a description of what happened when the URL was requested, twice, in two different ways. It is not a claim that ZoomInfo hides its pricing: running a bot check is an ordinary thing for a large site to do. Figures for ZoomInfo circulate widely; none of them comes from that page and none appears anywhere on this site.

Publishing a quantity without defining the unit

3 of the 9 vendors here publish an allowance on every tier and never say what one unit of it does: Clay, Apollo.io and Lusha. This is ordinary practice in the category and none of these vendors is doing anything unusual. It does have one consequence worth being explicit about: a cost per record for any of them can only be produced by guessing, so this site produces none, and any figure you find elsewhere is somebody’s reconstruction rather than the vendor’s statement.

• Clay: publishes allowances and no statement of what one buys. Clay defines both of its currencies in words but publishes no cost in either for any specific data point, so no figure per found email or phone number can be computed from this page.
• Apollo.io: publishes 2,500 credits a month at $65, which is $0.026 each, and no statement of what one buys. The pricing page publishes credit quantities on every tier and links out for an explanation rather than stating one. The only place it puts a dollar figure on a credit is the fair-use rule governing its unlimited plans.
• Lusha: publishes 400 credits a month at $49.90, which is $0.1247 each, and no statement of what one buys. The pricing page publishes a credit allowance on every tier and never states what one credit buys, nor whether an email and a phone number cost the same.

What can actually be priced, and what it comes to

2 of the 9 vendors publish both a price and the credits a found work email costs, so 2 cost-per-email figures exist in this entire category. Here they are, with the arithmetic shown.

• Prospeo, 100 verified work emails: $2.45 — Prospeo states a found work email costs 1 credit, so 100 of them need 100 credits. Its cheapest published paid plan is Starter at $49 a month for 2,000 credits, which is $0.02 a credit, so 100 credits cost $2.45. You cannot buy only that many: the smallest cheque is $49.
• FullEnrich, 100 verified work emails: $5.80 — FullEnrich states a found work email costs 1 credit, so 100 of them need 100 credits. Its cheapest published paid plan is Pro, 500 credits at $29 a month for 500 credits, which is $0.06 a credit, so 100 credits cost $5.80. You cannot buy only that many: the smallest cheque is $29.

And here is why the other 7 cannot be, one at a time:

• 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.

How this 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.

Frequently asked questions

Email Enrichment Cost Index · Enrichment tools under $50 a month · FullEnrich vs Clay · FullEnrich vs Apollo

9 vendors reviewed for this page.