Adapt.io vs Amplemarket (2026)
The decision is whether you constrain the volume or manage what the volume does. Adapt.io constrains it, and publishes the number: daily contact view caps of twenty five to one hundred depending on plan, which is a hard ceiling on how many records a person can even look at in a day, legible from the product surface rather than stated as a policy, alongside reveals a user initiates one at a time and list building that is manual and filtered. Amplemarket lets the volume run and builds a system around what it does to the sender. Warmup, a domain health centre, a deliverability booster, a spam checker and mailbox recommendation ship on every tier rather than gated upward, with authentication monitoring, inbox placement testing, structured per user mailbox allocations and a published aggregate bounce rate under three percent. The prices follow the theories. Adapt.io starts around forty nine dollars a month with unlimited seats. Amplemarket's minimum entry is seven thousand two hundred dollars on annual billing before any evaluation of fit.
- The throughput ceiling should be published rather than discovered. Daily contact view caps of twenty five to one hundred depending on plan appear in the pricing material, so a buyer knows the real limit on the work a seat can do before they buy rather than in month two.
- Seats should not be the meter. Users are unlimited on paid plans and the entry tier starts around forty nine dollars a month with a permanent free tier beneath it, against a counterpart whose minimum commitment is seven thousand two hundred dollars annually with no monthly option at all.
- You want export paths named rather than implied. Native routes into six named systems, covering both major platforms plus Pipedrive, Zoho, Outreach and Salesgear, unlock from the middle tier, with programmatic access available on paid plans.
- Outreach guidance should come from the vendor supplying the data. Amplemarket publishes operational instruction telling customers to state, at the top of an email or the start of a call, where the prospect's data was acquired and why they are being contacted, with a worked example, which nothing else in this index does.
- You want the deliverability position stated as a strategy rather than a feature list. The vendor's competitive positioning explicitly targets platforms that discontinued warmup and left customers with no native protection, so the suite included on every tier is a commitment it argues for publicly.
- Your review needs a residency answer with a transfer mechanism attached. Services are hosted in United States data centres, storage there is confirmed in the privacy policy, and cross border transfer from Europe, the United Kingdom and Switzerland rests on the framework plus standard contractual clauses, against a counterpart whose entire published answer is multi tenant cloud.
Plain facts
| Adapt.io | Amplemarket | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Data & Enrichment | Sales Engagement & Outreach |
| Founded | Not published | 2018 |
| Headquarters | Not published | San Francisco, CA |
| Website | www.adapt.io | www.amplemarket.com |
Side by Side
| Axis | A Adapt.io |
A Amplemarket |
|---|---|---|
|
AI Capability
|
||
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| AI Disclosure and Model Transparency | ||
| Operational and Outcome Evidence | ||
|
Compliance and Risk
|
||
| Outreach Compliance Posture | ||
| Data Privacy Posture | ||
| Data Licensing and Provenance | ||
| Platform Terms Exposure | ||
| AI Safety and Data Stewardship | ||
| Recipient Disclosure and Authenticity | ||
|
Integration and Deployment
|
||
| Ecosystem and Integration Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
|
Commercial and Operational
|
||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Exit and Data Portability | ||
| Deliverability and Sending Discipline | ||
| Segment and Market Coverage | ||
The short version of each
Adapt.io
Adapt.io is a business contact and company database sold at the budget end of the data tier, built around a filtered web application for prospecting and list building plus a browser extension that returns verified emails and direct dials while a user views a profile, with a stated directory of roughly 150 to 200 million contacts. The GTM Tech Index grades it B on autonomy and oversight because nothing in the core product acts without a person: contact reveals are user initiated, list building is manual and filtered, and daily view caps of twenty five to one hundred depending on plan put a hard human governed ceiling on throughput, legible from the product surface rather than stated as a policy.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Amplemarket
Amplemarket is a consolidated outbound platform combining a stated two hundred million contact database, multichannel sequencing across email, phone, the professional network, text and messaging, a native dialer and a full deliverability suite, with a copilot layer that surfaces signals, researches prospects and drafts sequences for a representative to approve. The GTM Tech Index grades it A on deliverability discipline, the deepest surface of its kind in the index and the only one sold as a first class product layer rather than assumed: warmup, a domain health centre, a deliverability booster, a spam checker and mailbox recommendation ship on every tier, alongside inbox placement testing, authentication monitoring and a published aggregate bounce rate under three percent.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is Adapt.io better than Amplemarket?
Whether you constrain the volume or manage what the volume does. Adapt.io constrains it and publishes the number, with daily contact view caps of twenty five to one hundred depending on plan, user initiated reveals and manual filtered list building. Amplemarket lets volume run and builds a system around what it does to the sender, shipping warmup, a domain health centre, a deliverability booster, a spam checker and mailbox recommendation on every tier. The prices follow the theories, at around forty nine dollars a month against a seven thousand two hundred dollar annual minimum.
Which one protects deliverability?
Amplemarket, by the widest margin on this axis in the index. Warmup, a domain health centre, a deliverability booster, a spam checker and mailbox recommendation ship on every tier rather than gated upward, with inbox placement testing, authentication monitoring, structured per user mailbox allocations and a published aggregate bounce rate under three percent. Adapt.io markets verification as a deliverability benefit and publishes no measured bounce rate, no verification methodology and no sending guidance, and nothing about warmup or volume governance for the sequencer it sells alongside the data.
How much do Adapt.io and Amplemarket cost?
Adapt.io, decisively, and the GTM Tech Index grades it A against B. A buyer can budget the actual purchase path without talking to anyone: plan names, monthly prices, credit allowances, a permanent free tier, unlimited seats and the daily contact view caps that govern real throughput are all published. Amplemarket publishes one tier genuinely, at six hundred dollars a month for two users on annual billing only, with credit mechanics explained, and leaves its two upper tiers quote only.
Where does the contact data come from?
Neither names a supplier, and they disclose different things around that. Adapt.io describes provenance in classes, stating that most directory information comes from its own members, that individuals may add their own details, and that the directory is supplemented with publicly available information and with records from providers it describes as legally authorised. Amplemarket characterises its database as licensed and names no supplier, aggregator or acquisition channel for more than two hundred million contacts refreshed at seventy million records a week.
Do the people in these databases have a route?
Both do, and better than most data vendors. Adapt.io states that it notifies individuals by email the first time their business contact information enters the directory, gives an opt out at that moment, and publishes a self service lookup. Amplemarket accepts controller status over its own licensed data in writing, names the notification article by name, states a thirty day response window and publishes a request route for erasure and no further contact, though its mechanism is reactive rather than a notice on first entry.
How does the GTM Tech Index grade Adapt.io and Amplemarket?
Both are graded on the same seventeen capability and compliance axes from public sources, and both sit at full documented depth. The GTM Tech Index grades Amplemarket A on outreach compliance posture, data privacy posture, security certifications and deliverability discipline, and B on autonomy, operational evidence, ecosystem depth, residency, commercial transparency and segment coverage. Adapt.io takes A on commercial transparency, where Amplemarket holds B, and B on autonomy, data privacy, data licensing, AI safety, recipient disclosure, ecosystem depth and segment coverage. The index publishes no composite score and declares no winner.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Sales Engagement & Outreach page.
Each vendor creates a question the buyer inherits, and neither answers it. Adapt.io publishes that most of its directory comes from its own members, which means the contact data a customer contributes becomes inventory the platform serves back to everyone, including that customer's competitors. Disclosing that is unusual and it is why the index credits the vendor rather than penalising it.
What is absent is any documented opt out or contractual exclusion from contribution, so a buyer who accepts the model cannot decline the part of it that flows outward, and no published retention or deletion terms cover their own account data either. Amplemarket's version sits inside its own compliance material.
The same page carrying the index's best guidance on telling a prospect where their data came from separately discloses that clients can collect prospect signal data including liked posts, which is a professional network collection question the vendor raises and never addresses: no conformance position with that platform appears anywhere, and the delivery mechanism behind the social automation its own capability scoring claims is never described. Underneath both sits the same gap.
Adapt.io states its directory is supplemented with publicly available information and with records from data providers it describes as legally authorised to supply them, and names none of them. Amplemarket characterises its database as licensed, which is itself a provenance claim, and names no supplier, aggregator or acquisition channel for more than two hundred million contacts refreshed at seventy million records a week. A buyer who has accepted controller duties for records either vendor supplied cannot trace them to a source from anything public.