Adapt.io vs Lusha (2026)
The decision is where the records came from, because these two answer it in opposite ways and both answers carry consequences. Adapt.io states plainly that most of its directory comes from its own members, so 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, and no opt out or contractual exclusion from contribution is documented anywhere. Lusha buys instead. Its privacy notice names two source classes, trusted data brokers and publicly available interfaces, limits the categories collected to what appears on a business card or an email signature block, and states a legitimate interest basis openly, and not one supplying broker is named, so the buyer inherits a supply chain they cannot inspect. One vendor tells you your list becomes the product. The other tells you it bought yours from somebody it will not name.
- You need to budget the actual purchase path without a call. Plan names, monthly prices and credit allowances are published, a permanent free tier carries stated limits, paid tiers start around forty nine dollars a month, seats are unlimited rather than metered, and the daily contact view caps that govern real throughput are published rather than discovered in month two.
- A person should initiate every reveal. Contact reveals are user initiated, list building is manual and filtered, and daily view caps of twenty five to one hundred by plan put a hard human governed ceiling on throughput, legible from the product surface rather than stated as a policy.
- You want the contribution model stated before you upload anything. Adapt.io publishes that its directory draws mostly from its own members, so a buyer knows in advance what happens to a contributed list rather than discovering it later, which is more than most of this tier states at all.
- Procurement will want the whole certificate wall. A public trust centre enumerates an audited service organisation control report plus international standards for information security, cloud security, cloud privacy, privacy information management, privacy by design and artificial intelligence management, with penetration test summaries and a sub processor list packaged for evaluation.
- The people in the database need a route of their own. Personal information notices go to European data subjects under the notification article with an explicit right to opt out, and a self serve privacy centre lets any individual find and act on their own record without being a customer of the company.
- You need a residency answer with countries in it. Two processing jurisdictions are on the record, the United States and Israel, with standard contractual clauses named as the transfer mechanism and a published sub processor list, against a counterpart whose entire published answer is multi tenant cloud.
Plain facts
| Adapt.io | Lusha | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Data & Enrichment | Data & Enrichment |
| Founded | Not published | Not published |
| Headquarters | Not published | Boston, MA |
| Website | www.adapt.io | www.lusha.com |
Side by Side
| Axis | A Adapt.io |
L Lusha |
|---|---|---|
|
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 A on commercial transparency, because 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. The index grades it B on AI safety and data stewardship for disclosing plainly that the directory draws mostly from its own members.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Lusha
Lusha is an established business contact and company data provider sold through a browser extension, a filtered web application and a programmatic interface, consumed on a credit model where an email address, a phone number and a recorded call each draw a different amount from one pool. The GTM Tech Index grades it A on data privacy posture, among the strongest in the index: the legal basis is named rather than implied, personal information notices go to European data subjects with an explicit right to opt out, a self serve privacy centre lets a non customer exercise rights directly, a pre signed processing addendum is published, and privacy practices are audited annually by an independent third party. It also holds A on security certifications, the broadest certification set in the index.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is Adapt.io better than Lusha?
Where the records came from, and the two answers are opposite. Adapt.io states that most of its directory comes from its own members, so a contributed list becomes inventory served back to everyone including competitors, disclosed plainly and with no opt out documented. Lusha buys instead, naming two source classes in its privacy notice, trusted data brokers and publicly available interfaces, without naming a single supplying broker. If you will not contribute your list, Adapt.io is the wrong shape. If you need a supply chain you can inspect, neither answers it fully.
Which one publishes pricing you can act on?
Adapt.io by a wide margin, and the GTM Tech Index grades it A against C. Adapt.io publishes plan names, monthly prices, credit allowances, a permanent free tier, unlimited seats and the daily contact view caps that govern real throughput, so a buyer can budget the purchase path without a conversation. Lusha publishes prices that its own materials contradict: reviews within months of each other report four different free tier credit figures, an entry tier spanning roughly twenty two to seventy dollars a user a month, and three different phone reveal costs.
Do the people in these databases know they are in them?
Both do, and unusually well for this category. 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 so anyone can check whether they are listed. Lusha sends personal information notices to European data subjects under the notification article with an explicit right to opt out, and runs a self serve privacy centre where a non customer can exercise rights directly. These two set the bar for the category on that question.
Do either disclose what AI or verification runs underneath?
Neither. Lusha holds an audited artificial intelligence management certification and a separate responsible artificial intelligence certification and still names no model, provider, version or hosting location for its enrichment, signals or generated sequences, which is attested governance rather than disclosed architecture. Adapt.io publishes no model stack either and, more relevant for a data product, no explanation of how records are verified, scored or matched, so a buyer cannot tell what verification runs before an address is marked verified.
Which has real security documentation?
Lusha, comprehensively, and it holds the broadest certification set in this index. A public trust centre enumerates an audited service organisation control report alongside international standards for information security, cloud security, cloud privacy, privacy information management, privacy by design and artificial intelligence management, with in product controls named individually and penetration test summaries and a sub processor list packaged for procurement. Adapt.io commits to reasonable security controls in its privacy policy and publishes no trust centre, certification, audit report or penetration test attestation.
How does the GTM Tech Index grade Adapt.io and Lusha?
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 Lusha A on data privacy posture and security certifications, and B on data licensing, AI safety and stewardship, recipient disclosure, ecosystem depth, deployment and residency, and segment coverage. Adapt.io takes A on commercial transparency, where Lusha holds C, and B on autonomy and oversight, 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.
One contradiction belongs at the top of this page because it goes to the question the verdict turns on. Lusha's comparison content published on its own site claims its data is verified at the source rather than aggregated from third parties, while its privacy notice states plainly that data is sourced from data brokers.
When a vendor's legal document and its marketing disagree about where the records came from, the legal document is the one to believe, and the disagreement is itself the finding. The same vendor's commercial disclosure fails in the same shape and more widely: independent reviews published within months of each other report the free tier at five, forty, fifty and one hundred credits, the entry paid tier at between roughly twenty two and seventy dollars a user a month, and a phone reveal at one, five or ten credits, with at least one review stating that the vendor's own pricing page and its vendor supplied listing on a major review site show different plan names at different price points.
Published numbers a buyer cannot reconcile produce false confidence, which is a different failure from opacity and in one respect a worse one. The shared silence is the platform. Both products lead with a browser extension that surfaces emails and direct dials while a user is on a professional network profile, which is the pattern that draws enforcement in this category, and neither states a conformance position with that platform anywhere.
At Lusha the omission is the more striking, because this is a company holding an audited artificial intelligence management certification, a responsible artificial intelligence certification, broker registration in California, standard contractual clauses and annual independent privacy audits, and none of that apparatus addresses the terms of the platform its most used entry point operates alongside. The two questions are genuinely separate and only one of them is answered. Ask both what happens to your team's accounts if the extension is restricted.